Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2821 - 2840 of 2978 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,684 Posts
Am I correct in assuming you guys are anti-vaccination?
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,684 Posts
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?
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,684 Posts
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.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,684 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
"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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
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."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,143 Posts
[=
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,438 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,601 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
"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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,143 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,684 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
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..
 
2821 - 2840 of 2978 Posts
Top