Do you believe in "global warming?" - Page 190 - Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums
 318Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #2836 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-20-2019, 01:47 PM
Registered User
 
nealric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,013
Garage
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.
nealric is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2837 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-20-2019, 03:38 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,109
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!
Calguy 17 likes this.

Jim . . . '72 Super 1300, '70, 1750GTV, 2nd series,
'62, Lancia Flaminia Zagato3c, 2nd series
180OUT is offline  
post #2838 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-20-2019, 05:59 PM
PSk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tauranga New Zealand
Posts: 11,551
Send a message via AIM to PSk Send a message via Yahoo to 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

'71 1750 Series 2 GTV:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
156 Series 1 v6 ... and remember it's all just opinions
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PSk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2839 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-20-2019, 07:14 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
Subtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, B C
Posts: 6,243
Perhaps a new course at school?
Asceticism 101.
Voluntary rather than mandatory.

Bob,
Avatar is the 68 Super, bought new.
Subtle is offline  
post #2840 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-20-2019, 07:24 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: baltimore, md.
Posts: 119
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..
mhunger is offline  
post #2841 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-20-2019, 11:32 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 167
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.

Last edited by alfamale44; 08-20-2019 at 11:38 PM.
alfamale44 is offline  
post #2842 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-21-2019, 06:20 AM
Registered User
 
101/105guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,590
The activists WOULD laugh if they weren't making a living off of it.
Attached Images
 

'64 Guilia Spider
'67 GTV
'68 Giulia Super

Conservatives-we work hard, so you don't have to !
101/105guy is offline  
post #2843 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-23-2019, 02:32 PM
Registered User
 
dmericas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hudson Bend, TX
Posts: 670
Garage
Good overview webpage from NASA for those of you who are interested in climate science, as opposed to myths and superstition. There is a list of references cited to back up all the information and if you want to dig deeper.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Dean
1974 2000 GTV / 1976 Giulia Nuova Super 2.0 / 1965 TR4
dmericas is online now  
post #2844 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-23-2019, 02:52 PM
Registered User
 
nealric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,013
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfamale44 View Post
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.
Who says I’m a tree hugger? If I were that, I wouldn’t work in the oil industry. I’m just someone willing to consider the facts objectively.

As for nuclear: If it were only a regulatory issue l, then countries line China and Pakistan would be 100% nuclear. And it makes no sense for people to hold down nuclear because they want some crappy government regulatory job. If there were more plants, they would actually have a much bigger/important job or opportunities in the private sector doing nuclear work.

1986 Spider Veloce Turbo
nealric is offline  
post #2845 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-23-2019, 03:08 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
Subtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, B C
Posts: 6,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmericas View Post
Good overview webpage from NASA for those of you who are interested in climate science, as opposed to myths and superstition. There is a list of references cited to back up all the information and if you want to dig deeper.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The link says "evidence", but it is an attractive layout of NASA propaganda.

Bob,
Avatar is the 68 Super, bought new.
Subtle is offline  
post #2846 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-23-2019, 10:59 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealric View Post
Who says I’m a tree hugger? If I were that, I wouldn’t work in the oil industry. I’m just someone willing to consider the facts objectively.

As for nuclear: If it were only a regulatory issue l, then countries line China and Pakistan would be 100% nuclear. And it makes no sense for people to hold down nuclear because they want some crappy government regulatory job. If there were more plants, they would actually have a much bigger/important job or opportunities in the private sector doing nuclear work.
China and Pakistan use coal because that's a lot easier and plentiful than anything else available and they don't give a rat's butt about CO2 emissions. They don't need nuclear they want to build their economies now and I don't know that either country could build a high quality safe nuclear plant anyway. If you listen to pretty much all of the environmentalists with all of their talking points nuclear is the one alternative they are against. They don't even list it in their alternative energy list. And there is no way in hell that you can replace the energy needs of our country with wind and solar alone. The laws of physics apply even if you don't like it. And believe me when you have a pretty cushy gov. job with great benefits it is very difficult to give that up and try your hand in the real world.
alfamale44 is offline  
post #2847 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-24-2019, 01:39 AM
Registered User
 
VeloceRosso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 392
Garage
I confess I’ve not read much of this thread but just came across this short clip. Apologies if this has been shared or spoken about before. Is this oversimplification or just common sense?:

https://youtu.be/jNd0HEvFWLs

Jannes
'64 Giulia 1600 Ti, '66 Giulia Sprint GT Veloce, '70 1750 GTV
VeloceRosso is offline  
post #2848 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-24-2019, 04:00 AM
Registered User
 
dmericas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hudson Bend, TX
Posts: 670
Garage
Regarding that YouTube video, the Heartland Institute has a long and shameful history of promoting junk science with generous funding from corporations that benefit from the resulting confusion. In the past, their “experts” have argued, among other things, that ddt is not only harmless but a overall public health benefit, cigarettes aren’t unhealthy, and now climate change is an overblown hoax. This work was directed and funded by pesticide manufacturers, tobacco companies, and now fossil fuel interests. The book Merchants of Doubt provides details on this organization and its history.

There is plenty of scientifically sound and readily available information out there reflecting the work and findings of tens of thousands of scientists, statisticians and engineers on climate change. Claiming that its all propaganda because a small number of fringe people disagree is pretty weak.

This forum is starting to resemble desperate cancer victims embracing shamans and herbal treatments because they don’t want to hear the bad news that every cancer expert they’ve seen has given them.

Dean
1974 2000 GTV / 1976 Giulia Nuova Super 2.0 / 1965 TR4
dmericas is online now  
post #2849 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-24-2019, 04:47 AM
Registered User
 
101/105guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,590
That is UNCOMMON sense !
And we can see the usual dismissal of facts based on lumping eveyone into the 'for profit' side so that they can ignore the argument.

What facts about the makeup of gasses in the atmosphere is incorrect??

'64 Guilia Spider
'67 GTV
'68 Giulia Super

Conservatives-we work hard, so you don't have to !
101/105guy is offline  
post #2850 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-24-2019, 07:25 AM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
Subtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, B C
Posts: 6,243
Parts of the promotion are so bizarre that they prompt satire.
One from the other day by Aian Aitken:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...erence-report/
factotum likes this.

Bob,
Avatar is the 68 Super, bought new.
Subtle is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

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










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

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