Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Do you believe in "global warming?" Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Yesterday 11:32 PM
alfamale44
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealric View Post
Personally, I'm all for nuclear, as are many people advocating for climate change activists. You paint with far too broad a brush. New reactor designs are quite safe compared to the 1950s-70s designs that caused the newsworthy nuclear incidents. Plus, people tend to be quite irrational about radiation.

The thing that hobbles nuclear right now is economics. It looses out to wind/solar every time a new plant is considered. However, nuclear could be a useful tool to provide steady state power when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow- essentially the role the coal/gas play in the current power generation matrix.

THE reason the economics of nuclear lose out is because the tree huggers have made it so expensive as to not even consider it, like you. The industry is regulated by at least 3 different federal agencies all with an eye on keeping their jobs. No regulations no jobs. Drop all the nonsense regulatory crap and the expense would diminish exponentially. And please do a youtube search for "The climate fix" and learn exactly what it would take to replace fossil fuels with Big Wind and Solar. It's laughable.
Yesterday 07:24 PM
mhunger anthropogenic climate change or natural, hysteria or real crisis, I think what is abundantly clear, and what even proponents of climate policy must admit, is that the crisis is being used on an international policy level to control human behavior. Nothing is more important than the planet right? therefore we must restrict the consumption of meat, tell people what kind of cars to drive, tax fuel so exorbitantly to fund "green energy" that people have to live in smaller apartments, enforce "one child" policies, make air travel exorbitantly expensive, etc.

Btw, non of the above is made up. all of those policy proposals have already been proposed, most of them starting in Germany, but they will soon be coming to a government near you. And for what?? have the Maladives dissappeared as predicted? no. have all the glaciers in north america melted as predicted? no. Has skiing become a thing of the past? no. ( in fact, they skied in the sierras till august this year...) have the oceans risen up to swallow florida? no.

Bottom line: we are seriously looking at giving up our freedom to travel where we want, eat what we want, live where we want and have the children we want for a "crisis" that has NEVER confirmed a single prediction of any of the "scientific" models that have been used to analyze it.

maybe its time to step back and take a deep breath before we make everyones lives significantly worse for nothing..
Yesterday 07:14 PM
Subtle Perhaps a new course at school?
Asceticism 101.
Voluntary rather than mandatory.
Yesterday 05:59 PM
PSk
Quote:
Originally Posted by 180OUT View Post
I tend to be a technological determinist as far as social change is concerned. Historically, when pressing needs appeared, humans have solved their problems by creating new technologies. Technological fixes, however, do little to scratch the itch of people who are experiencing status anxiety and who have a psychological need to see their social values institutionalized as laws. It's interesting to note that the US leads the world in carbon emission reductions. Technology rocks!
I tend to agree and good to see the US doing so well. Well done.

I would like society to move on from consumerism as that has resulted in quantity over quality, and therefore more waste.
Pete
Yesterday 03:38 PM
180OUT I tend to be a technological determinist as far as social change is concerned. Historically, when pressing needs appeared, humans have solved their problems by creating new technologies. Technological fixes, however, do little to scratch the itch of people who are experiencing status anxiety and who have a psychological need to see their social values institutionalized as laws. It's interesting to note that the US leads the world in carbon emission reductions. Technology rocks!
Yesterday 01:47 PM
nealric
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutlefan View Post
"I'm going to leave out nuclear power because you greenies are sooooooo afraid of it even though it is the one and pretty only one that would make even a dent in that power number that is needed and no deadly, disgusting CO2 that you are so worried about is emitted from them."

This exactly. I won't take seriously anyone who advocates for alternative energy "solutions" as a response to concerns about C02 levels which don't include nuclear energy. Very few "green energy" advocates do, though. They patronize others, claiming the "pro-science" mantle for themselves, while they themselves are not grounded in anything resembling objective reality. They have a strange idea of scientific credibility.

If (if) ever-rising CO2 was really an immediate existential threat, the ONLY realistically effective response would be to shift power production from coal to natural gas for the short term, and ultimately natural gas to nuclear for the long term. 4th gen reactors, such as fast breeder reactors, could supply the world's current energy needs for 500 years burning only what we already have stored as nuclear waste (http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf). Instead, apart from a few realists like Bill Gates, we get a barrage of nonsense solutions from the alarmists. A conspiracy to take away individual autonomy? From some no doubt; no doubt for many others it's simply an indication that their naive idealism far overshadows any kind of technical competence.

p.s. I love Roger Pielke Jr. btw. Also Judith Curry. Eminently reasonable yet are labeled as heretics because they simply demand discussion about that we are supposed to accept unquestionably, no matter how questionable.
Personally, I'm all for nuclear, as are many people advocating for climate change activists. You paint with far too broad a brush. New reactor designs are quite safe compared to the 1950s-70s designs that caused the newsworthy nuclear incidents. Plus, people tend to be quite irrational about radiation.

The thing that hobbles nuclear right now is economics. It looses out to wind/solar every time a new plant is considered. However, nuclear could be a useful tool to provide steady state power when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow- essentially the role the coal/gas play in the current power generation matrix.
Yesterday 11:45 AM
ALFAB4U Seattle's shoreline is more likely to get a boost from a Mt. Rainier lahar than diminished by rising sea level...I wonder what government program we can create to halt lahars.
Yesterday 11:40 AM
Subtle I live out on Point Grey which is as far west as you can get in Vancouver.
Today being a nice day, the view down to the Pacific is wonderful and checking now:
The ocean is right at the sea level.
That's after rising more than 300 feet over the last 12,000 years.
And with the air outside at room temperature--life is good.
No problemo.
Yesterday 11:11 AM
101/105guy Good gracious!!! How much seafront is under water
Let us know what Seattle is doing about this and if everyone will be forced to move to higher ground! Save the children.
Yesterday 10:19 AM
Del The latest issue (8/17/19) of 'Science News', yes, that propaganda rag from the worldwide Science Cabal, has interesting articles about the newer determinations concerning the causes and effects of climate change, and what different seacoast cities worldwide are planning or actually doing now to counter the increasing flooding they are experiencing.
08-18-2019 01:30 PM
180OUT [=
Quote:
Being a "Geo", I thought the promotion would have failed long ago. But the money is so compelling and so corrupting.
There is an old saying about medieval troubadors, as they mooched from castle to castle or from hall to hall.
"His bread I eat, his song I sing."
[/QUOTE]

The Temperance and Prohibition Movement began with the collapse of of the Whig part and lasted almost a full century---through a constitutional amendment and until the late 1930's before the movement collapsed of it's own weight. IT is an analog for all subsequent American lifestyle reform movements.

When I was a young college student, one of my sociology professors invited a surviving member of the local Woman's Christian Temperance Union to speak to our class. She was a very nice, very southern gentle-lady in her 80's who spent the class trying o tell a bunch of 20 something 60's hellions about the evils of strong drink.
08-18-2019 09:06 AM
Subtle I think the full number of heretics is 386.
Sadly, I'm not on the list. Although I've been a skeptic for decades.
And have been writing heretical stuff on climate since 2008.
Being a "Geo", I thought the promotion would have failed long ago. But the money is so compelling and so corrupting.
There is an old saying about medieval troubadors, as they mooched from castle to castle or from hall to hall.
"His bread I eat, his song I sing."
08-18-2019 08:47 AM
Rutlefan "I'm going to leave out nuclear power because you greenies are sooooooo afraid of it even though it is the one and pretty only one that would make even a dent in that power number that is needed and no deadly, disgusting CO2 that you are so worried about is emitted from them."

This exactly. I won't take seriously anyone who advocates for alternative energy "solutions" as a response to concerns about C02 levels which don't include nuclear energy. Very few "green energy" advocates do, though. They patronize others, claiming the "pro-science" mantle for themselves, while they themselves are not grounded in anything resembling objective reality. They have a strange idea of scientific credibility.

If (if) ever-rising CO2 was really an immediate existential threat, the ONLY realistically effective response would be to shift power production from coal to natural gas for the short term, and ultimately natural gas to nuclear for the long term. 4th gen reactors, such as fast breeder reactors, could supply the world's current energy needs for 500 years burning only what we already have stored as nuclear waste (http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf). Instead, apart from a few realists like Bill Gates, we get a barrage of nonsense solutions from the alarmists. A conspiracy to take away individual autonomy? From some no doubt; no doubt for many others it's simply an indication that their naive idealism far overshadows any kind of technical competence.

p.s. I love Roger Pielke Jr. btw. Also Judith Curry. Eminently reasonable yet are labeled as heretics because they simply demand discussion about that we are supposed to accept unquestionably, no matter how questionable.
08-17-2019 07:16 PM
Subtle
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSk View Post
I'm often wrong. Its part of being an imperfect human 🙂

You do realise that this change is not an overnight thing, but a gradual phasing in over time, and it may very well not be possible to remove all petroleum based energy sources, in fact we may not need to. As a start we need to start reducing our CO2 production, but again that does not mean we go to bed producing N and then tomorrow "we" produce, via industry, 0.

But to debate that we should just carry on ignoring all other energy sources is a bit ostrich like don't you think.

Heck what will happen to dear old America in 500 years if oil did run out?
Pete
Market forces, unfettered, will provide what's needed when it is needed.

The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones.
08-17-2019 06:00 PM
PSk I'm often wrong. Its part of being an imperfect human 🙂

You do realise that this change is not an overnight thing, but a gradual phasing in over time, and it may very well not be possible to remove all petroleum based energy sources, in fact we may not need to. As a start we need to start reducing our CO2 production, but again that does not mean we go to bed producing N and then tomorrow "we" produce, via industry, 0.

But to debate that we should just carry on ignoring all other energy sources is a bit ostrich like don't you think.

Heck what will happen to dear old America in 500 years if oil did run out?
Pete
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome