PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Because the Republican Party's sole goal is to make rich people richer.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.Who are you fooling? There's none of that on your side? 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.
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.I would still like an answer to this question.
Who are you fooling? There's none of that on your side? 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.
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?
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.
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.
You talked purely short term and then loaded it with politics, that's not what I asked.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. Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are good in certain areas but are not good enough to supply the entire planet as is.
How do you feel about money going to the development of these technologies so that they can be ready faster?
You talked purely short term and then loaded it with politics, that's not what I asked.
Where was the false premise?
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.
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.
Perhaps (or perhaps not) he'd be more willing if you weren't so condescending in response, BVS.
Diemen said:Perhaps (or perhaps not) he'd be more willing if you weren't so condescending in response, BVS.
so basically you want to wait until it is profitable. i hate this country.
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.
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."
That's like asking him if he wants to work for Burger King or Arby's. Same shit, different packaging.Philly, you'll never get a job at Fox News with that attitude. MSNBC... sure, but who watches them?
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.
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.