|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Yesterday 01:30 PM|
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.
|Yesterday 09:06 AM|
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."
|Yesterday 08:47 AM|
"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|
Originally Posted by PSk View Post
The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones.
|08-17-2019 06:00 PM|
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?
|08-17-2019 03:56 PM|
Calculations done by climate physicists have determined that on average every citizen in the US uses 250kwhrs/day and the vast amount of that number is from fossil fuels. So please do the calculations (or look them up) for how much energy you get from each of the supposedly "green energy" sources per kwhr/day and tell us EXACTLY which sources would you use to replace what's necessary and how much land you would need and how much $$ it would cost and how long it will take to replace the power we need. If you do those calculations you will see that it will not work. 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.
Please do yourselves a favor and at least go to YouTube and search for "The Climate Fix" by Professor Roger Pielke Jr from the University of Colorado in Boulder who is an ardent environmentalist but also a realist and a true scientist. He does all of the necessary calculations for fossil fuel replacement using the sources you guys like and don't like. Don't be afraid it's OK; sometimes we're just simply...wrong.
|08-16-2019 10:50 PM|
Well I'm pleased you understand the benefits of vaccination, even though it is an authoritarian thing pushed on us by governments.
From what I've been reading in this thread recently it is this authoritarian method, and encroaching on your freedom, that is your main concern with the global warming "hoax".
I don't think those that say that here are being truthful and just using it as an excuse to "go on" about this history of America and how "you" must all be ready to fight for your liberty and freedom.
Hopefully you will see the connection I am making, and have another calmer look at the change global warmist want the world to make. It really isn't huge; we absolutely still need energy, we just want the world to use a different energy source. We are not saying people can't become rich from it like many have from our current oil based energy source.
|08-16-2019 08:41 PM|
|101/105guy||We're here for you buddy......maybe it's just low blood sugar.|
|08-16-2019 08:22 PM|
Vaccination is a world wide health directive (single government/authoritarian), just like global warming. You won't support the global warming movement but you were happy (as I was/am) to go with the flow with vaccination.
So what is the difference?
|08-16-2019 08:12 PM|
There seems to be huge disconnect with the latest post. Now what does vaccinations got to do with this old climate thread?
I think that some on the Left have a serious problem with said procedure.
Or, maybe it is with not having said procedure.
It is difficult to keep up with the anxieties.
|08-16-2019 07:51 PM|
Am I correct in assuming you guys are anti-vaccination?
|08-16-2019 10:17 AM|
And reform the education system that is so confused and corrupt.
Some should worry less about rich, successful people and worry more about those who will do and say anything to get power.
|08-16-2019 10:08 AM|
His dedication in "Road to Serfdom" is:
"To The Socialists In All Parties"
And before US politics can be reformed, the Republican Party needs to be reformed.
As in by-passing the socialists in all parties.
|08-16-2019 09:19 AM|
And as the door on one of the Alfabb's longest running off-topic threads slowly closes . . . I'd like to suggest a good book. Several of us here already know his work, but if you haven't read F.A. Hayek, his Road To Surfdom is an eloquent discussion of the importance of maintaining liberty and freedom in a world of competing political-economic dogmas. I can promise an enlightening, if challenging, read. In its various permutations, warmism militates against liberty and freedom. In Road To Surfdom, Hayek explains why.
From the MisesInstitute:
|08-16-2019 06:51 AM|
Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau admires Chinese Communism, because when it comes to climate it will have the resolve to get things done.
But authoritarian regimes have had the worst pollution and CO2 emissions record.
Not that I'm agreeing with the nonsense that CO2 causes climate change.
And then there was the Prof in Europe who called for the death penalty for "Climate Change Deniers".
And there are the zealots Robert Kennedy Jr. and Dr. David Suzuki who, upon reading this, would put me in jail.
If they had the power.
As I enjoy reminding. Murray Gell-Mann's definition of a totalitarian system:
That which isn't compulsory is prohibited.
Which elegantly describes the climate mania.
At the beginning it was Maurice Strong's ambition to destroy modern industrial society.
And recently high-ups at the UN have been using climate hysteria to impose a one-world government.
"Climate" is just another authoritarian banner.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|