The Truth, Still Inconvenient

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Right, but it's not even a Republican-Democrat issue. INDY can point to "anti-science Canucks", but it was our Conservative government that made the decision. This issue seems to be split along ideological lines in whichever country you live in and those who lean left in Canada are embarrassed by the government's decision.
 
How many left of center folks do you know that believe man has absolutely no impact on climate change?

Now how many right of center folks do you know that that do believe man has an impact?

I would say that if you're being honest with yourself you know where the answer lies, and that answer is pretty telling.
 
Let's take baby steps, one question at a time:

In the long run, what do you think would be cheaper; staying the course with fossil fuels or finding an efficient means to use something that's free and available forever like solar or wind?

Staying the course with fossil fuels precisely because when the technology is good enough then you can expand it. To forcefully expand it before it's good enough will do so much economic damage that even left-wing governments will have to back off to prevent a riot. All countries that adopted it never lowered CO2 emissions because to do that would require all fossil fuels sources to be shutdown like James Hansen wants. Secondly I don't trust the U.N. will even use the money properly. They were already looking at giving corrupt African governments access to this money and to expand their own bureaucracy with a binding world government. I'm actually surprised it took this long for people to wake up.

Any governments that do cap and trade will not eliminate fossil fuels anytime soon and will continue to use fossil fuels to keep the prices from being what they need to be to actually reduce it to the level that Franny Armstrong would like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=314UCvMmgrU

30 or 40%? :huh:

We can't trust hypocrites like this with our hard earned money.

Climate change (which science is now showing to be mostly natural) is not the great crisis of today. The debt crisis is. If you and your president want to double down on the wrong priorities then you deserve to be turfed out of power.

BTW BVS, what do you mean by "efficient means" when we are talking about few geological sites that actually fit that description? Everywhere else it's expensive subsidies, while still burning fossil fuels.

This issue seems to be split along ideological lines in whichever country you live in and those who lean left in Canada are embarrassed by the government's decision.

Exactly and in Australia the conservatives are embarrassed by that government's decision to go for a carbon tax when U.S. and China have failed to do so. Totally pointless. My bet is if Harper charged a carbon tax I'm sure the left would take the opportunity to criticize the economic results with complete knowing duplicity. If the U.S. doesn't support cap and trade any carbon tax will bleed jobs from Canada to the U.S. Harper is a genius compared to Justin Trudeau who is a hack and an egomaniac.
 
Staying the course with fossil fuels precisely because when the technology is good enough then you can expand it. To forcefully expand it before it's good enough will do so much economic damage that even left-wing governments will have to back off to prevent a riot. All countries that adopted it never lowered CO2 emissions because to do that would require all fossil fuels sources to be shutdown like James Hansen wants. Secondly I don't trust the U.N. will even use the money properly. They were already looking at giving corrupt African governments access to this money and to expand their own bureaucracy with a binding world government. I'm actually surprised it took this long for people to wake up.

You can't be serious... Did you even understand the question? See? You can't even answer a simple question without politicizing the hell out of it and/ or throwing in a conspiracy.

You can't seem to approach this issue with logic, it's always talking head speak and politicing.
 
You can't be serious... Did you even understand the question? See? You can't even answer a simple question without politicizing the hell out of it and/ or throwing in a conspiracy.

You can't seem to approach this issue with logic, it's always talking head speak and politicing.

Who are you fooling? There's none of that on your side? :lmao: I did answer your question and gave you multiple reasons. Go join Thom Yorke on the new Greenpeace boat and tell me there's no politicizing there. Climategate 2.0 showed precisely that there is conspiratorial politicizing in science but apparently that's not enough evidence for you. Doing stupid graphs to eliminate the historical medieval warming period to justify brutal energy taxes isn't political for you? Of course there's politics and economics involved. I wish the science wasn't political but after that Climategate 1.0 whitewash investigation it can't be anything but political.

I've showed plenty of science that ironically was brought up in Climategate 2.0 with Mann's own staff :doh: only to be ignored by Mann and Jones precisely because it was politically incorrect. Mann uses the term "THE CAUSE" when talking about climate change.

Tell me how can you lower the standard of living of the public with green taxes and not have a political effect?

BTW BVS, what do you mean by "efficient means" when we are talking about few geological sites that actually fit that description? Everywhere else it's expensive subsidies, while still burning fossil fuels.

I would still like an answer to this question. I want reality about the state of the technology, not promises. If solar and wind are capable of replacing fossil fuels venture capitalists would be throwing money like crazy to make profits off the new "efficient system". Even trying to convince coal state democrats to switch over will involve lots of lying about replacing fossil fuel jobs with green jobs 1:1. Geothermal in Iceland and wind in Texas is a drop in the bucket in the amount of energy we need to fuel homes and vehicles worldwide.
 
Who are you fooling? There's none of that on your side? :lmao: I did answer your question and gave you multiple reasons. Go join Thom Yorke on the new Greenpeace boat and tell me there's no politicizing there. Climategate 2.0 showed precisely that there is conspiratorial politicizing in science but apparently that's not enough evidence for you. Doing stupid graphs to eliminate the historical medieval warming period to justify brutal energy taxes isn't political for you? Of course there's politics and economics involved. I wish the science wasn't political but after that Climategate 1.0 whitewash investigation it can't be anything but political.
Of course there is politics on all sides, I even stated that earlier. But I asked you a very non-political answer and you gave me a bunch of bullshit.

Try and answer the question logically without politics.



I would still like an answer to this question.
What I mean is simple. I mean advancing the technology efficiently enough that panels(solar) and storage are small enough lasting enough to be used in a wider variety of environments.

The technology is there for both solar and wind, but it isn't turnkey yet. But if you live in an area of the world where solar can power your house, why wouldn't you? The initial upfront usually pays for itself in less than 5 years. It's a no brainer from an economic standpoint. Now logic says once there is more produced, costs can go down and then the initial upfront costs become almost the same as paying one year of your normal utility bill. Now why wouldn't you want to pay one or two years of utility bills upfront if the rest of your time in that home utilities are basically free?
 
Who are you fooling? There's none of that on your side? :lmao: I did answer your question and gave you multiple reasons. Go join Thom Yorke on the new Greenpeace boat and tell me there's no politicizing there. Climategate 2.0 showed precisely that there is conspiratorial politicizing in science but apparently that's not enough evidence for you. Doing stupid graphs to eliminate the historical medieval warming period to justify brutal energy taxes isn't political for you? Of course there's politics and economics involved. I wish the science wasn't political but after that Climategate 1.0 whitewash investigation it can't be anything but political.

There is certainly hypocrisy in both sides. I'd wager a single Radiohead tour produces more carbon than the average person does in a lifetime. (Sorry Thom, but playing to smaller venues than U2 or Bon Jovi doesn't get you off the hook. It just means you don't have as much common appeal). If you look at the most prominent GW personalities in the media, from Yorke to Al Gore to the Guardian's increasingly hysterical George Monbiot, most of them have children - surely if they had the courage of their convictions, they would refrain from reproducing, as (according to them) the main problem with the planet is that there are too many people on it?

The wealthy and cultural elite must realise that they are not going to get away with preaching to working and middle class people until they start by changing their ways first.
 
Of course there is politics on all sides, I even stated that earlier. But I asked you a very non-political answer and you gave me a bunch of bullshit.

Try and answer the question logically without politics.

If these new technologies are cost effective in ALL places everyone would want in on it. The problem is that it's not cost effective in most places. Solar at minimum will have to absorb all the light waves to have a chance at viability. What we see today is heavy subsidies while at the same time mostly using fossil fuels. These subsidies increase energy costs. That's the state Denmark is in now. France at least was smart enough to get in on nuclear for their electricity.

What I mean is simple. I mean advancing the technology efficiently enough that panels(solar) and storage are small enough lasting enough to be used in a wider variety of environments.

The technology is there for both solar and wind, but it isn't turnkey yet. But if you live in an area of the world where solar can power your house, why wouldn't you? The initial upfront usually pays for itself in less than 5 years. It's a no brainer from an economic standpoint. Now logic says once there is more produced, costs can go down and then the initial upfront costs become almost the same as paying one year of your normal utility bill. Now why wouldn't you want to pay one or two years of utility bills upfront if the rest of your time in that home utilities are basically free?

Yes but "if you live in an area" is exactly the problem. I live in an area that has lots of sun for half the year and very little for half the year. No amount of wind and solar is going to heat our homes during the frigid winter and fuel vehicles. What would happen to the travel industry without planes? Franny Armstrong is against planes but how are we going to fuel them with what we have now? Natural Gas, Coal, and oil are likely to be here to stay for our lifetimes and farther. Maybe if there are some breakthroughs over the next century to make it cheaper then jobs from one energy sector can be safely be replaced by the new green sector, though likely they would have to involve some nuclear technology. We are not all like Iceland with geothermal but if those regions want it they should be able to pay for it themselves if they are so efficient. I'm more in favor of research and development funding so we can avoid pushing half baked technologies on the populace. It would also avoid U.N. entanglements if we hope to learn from the E.U. experience of layered bureaucracy.

Forcing the public to adopt these in-utero technologies is not like foisting Windows Vista with a quick turn around and voila!...Windows 7. It's way harder than that and it would crush the poor and squeeze the middle class.

The wealthy and cultural elite must realise that they are not going to get away with preaching to working and middle class people until they start by changing their ways first.

Especially Prince Charles.
 
Ha ha I knew you couldn't do it, I knew you weren't capable of making a single post without politics.


And why are you so obsessed with a turnkey form of energy? You really rather go nuclear instead of a form of energy that can eventually be FREE? That doesn't sound like fiscal responsibility.
 
Ha ha I knew you couldn't do it, I knew you weren't capable of making a single post without politics.

I answer your question with great detail and then some and you ignore it with flippant sideways remarks. Very BVS. You basically have a false premise in your loaded questions and I don't bite. :D Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are good in certain areas but are not good enough to supply the entire planet as is.

And why are you so obsessed with a turnkey form of energy? You really rather go nuclear instead of a form of energy that can eventually be FREE? That doesn't sound like fiscal responsibility.

I'm interested in nuclear because it actually is the cheapest green energy we have now and because thorium is much safer and closer to reality for our future and extremely plentiful. Once solar gets better (like when IBM predicts it will in a few decades) then the viability of solar power will be ready for the market. Right now the Spanish experience is what governments want to avoid.
 
I answer your question with great detail and then some and you ignore it with flippant sideways remarks. Very BVS. You basically have a false premise in your loaded questions and I don't bite. :D Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are good in certain areas but are not good enough to supply the entire planet as is.
You talked purely short term and then loaded it with politics, that's not what I asked.

Where was the false premise?
 
How do you feel about money going to the development of these technologies so that they can be ready faster?

Not 70 trillion over 40 years, and not to the U.N. Certainly a tax credit for those who perform research and development. Once the technology is better then there will be venture capitalists who will want to make profits on it and it will grow on it's own.
 
You talked purely short term and then loaded it with politics, that's not what I asked.

Where was the false premise?

The false premise is that if wind and solar work in particular places that it may develop to the point where it can work in most places. It may not. Some technologies will take decades or not at all no matter how much money you put at it. That's why I like nuclear because it's a lot closer and it won't damage the economy as badly. Right now we could move towards replacing coal electricity without having to deindustrialize. With nuclear fusion we would power everything. Wind sucks. Solar may have a future once all the light waves can be absorbed.

My point of view is that we should focus on research and development and I'm okay with some money there but when there is a huge deficit and overall debt I don't want to shutdown coal plants right away a la Obama and James Hansen and I don't want to put people out of work in a bad economy. It's not rocket science guys.
 
purpleoscar said:
Not 70 trillion over 40 years, and not to the U.N. Certainly a tax credit for those who perform research and development. Once the technology is better then there will be venture capitalists who will want to make profits on it and it will grow on it's own.

so basically you want to wait until it is profitable. i hate this country.
 
purpleoscar said:
The false premise is that if wind and solar work in particular places that it may develop to the point where it can work in most places. It may not. Some technologies will take decades or not at all no matter how much money you put at it. That's why I like nuclear because it's a lot closer and it won't damage the economy as badly. Right now we could move towards replacing coal electricity without having to deindustrialize. With nuclear fusion we would power everything. Wind sucks. Solar may have a future once all the light waves can be absorbed.

My point of view is that we should focus on research and development and I'm okay with some money there but when there is a huge deficit and overall debt I don't want to shutdown coal plants right away a la Obama and James Hansen and I don't want to put people out of work in a bad economy. It's not rocket science guys.

No, that was not the premise of my question. You should go back and read. I tried. I tried to take this discussion to another level where we were just discussing the ideas of the technologies without politics, but you weren't capable. It's not rocket science, this could have been an interesting discussion. I should have known better.
 
Diemen said:
Perhaps (or perhaps not) he'd be more willing if you weren't so condescending in response, BVS.

I think we all know Oscar well enough to know that really wouldn't matter, I've tried all approaches with him. And let's not pretend that he's innocent and cordial either.
 
I suggest that next time you feel you've run out of all options except condescension, you just let it go. Constantly berating someone because they're not giving you the answer you want is a waste of time, and certainly does nothing to elevate the level of discourse.
 
I ought to point out that the accommodations that purpleoscar puts forth is exactly the kind of sliding intransigence that I have alluded to, quite possibly in this thread, of deliberate ignorance leading to limited acknowledgement of a problem until the cost-benefit is problematic.

A thinking person ought to question their motivations. I have every reason to be a denialist and I question the motivations of climatologists, but I balance this against a preference for truth and a belief that a conspiracy of scientists would be utterly unsustainable.

Ruthless competition for grants checks against systematic collaboration to a grand lie by climate scientists and one ought to bear in mind that the reality of climate change is not one that most people would wish for.
 
I suggest that next time you feel you've run out of all options except condescension, you just let it go. Constantly berating someone because they're not giving you the answer you want is a waste of time, and certainly does nothing to elevate the level of discourse.

Wow! Thanks!

Anyways there is no clear answer right now. If solar and wind were that good (AKA profitable and net jobs wouldn't be lost) everyone would do it. Everyone would like an Iceland geothermal situation or cool solar panels that could pay for themselves IN MOST regions but we aren't there yet. Also with the science on man induced climate change is still in heated debate with the Climategate emails it's good for everyone to keep their powder dry before they invest too much emotion for either side. Pro AGW types will post controversial studies blaming man and skeptics will look for holes in the science when they try and replicate the studies. Until things are clear on the science I don't know anyone who would glady reduce their standard of living willingly with anything other than a catastrophie. This group of people will also include celebrity environmentalists who live high on the hog and preach to others.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/

Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.

"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”

Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.

"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."

The great thing about profit though is when a new technology shows that promise, the change happens more quickly because profits grow jobs and sustain a larger population and I expect that nuclear and (if it improves light absorption) solar will help.
 
rhzJ2.png
 
My interpretation,

The world is already messed up because of past generations... why should I take the stand to preserve the environment so that future generations will have a sustainable place to live since I am already struggling too much to maintain my existence in this planet because of the past generations' faults?

Neurosis is a major problem in human existence.
 
My interpretation,

The world is already messed up because of past generations... why should I take the stand to preserve the environment so that future generations will have a sustainable place to live since I am already struggling too much to maintain my existence in this planet because of the past generations' faults?

Neurosis is a major problem in human existence.



My interpertation.

This "world system" (governments and social orders) is indeed
a world gone wrong.

The earth is fine and doing well.
 
the iron horse said:
My interpertation.

This "world system" (governments and social orders) is indeed
a world gone wrong.

The earth is fine and doing well.

Two questions:

Why are you always complaining about a "world system"?

When you say the "earth is fine" do you honestly believe there is nothing humans can do to change that?
 
Back
Top Bottom