The Truth, Still Inconvenient - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-14-2011, 01:04 PM   #271
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Because the Republican Party's sole goal is to make rich people richer.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 01:41 PM   #272
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 08:04 PM
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.
__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 02:08 PM   #273
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:04 PM
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.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 12:19 AM   #274
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.


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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
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.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 06:58 AM   #275
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:20 AM   #276
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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? 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 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?

Quote:
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.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:12 AM   #277
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 06:04 PM   #278
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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.
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.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 08:06 PM   #279
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:42 PM   #280
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:04 PM
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.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 04:08 PM   #281
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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. Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are good in certain areas but are not good enough to supply the entire planet as is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 04:33 PM   #282
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 07:04 PM
How do you feel about money going to the development of these technologies so that they can be ready faster?
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 05:24 PM   #283
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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.
You talked purely short term and then loaded it with politics, that's not what I asked.

Where was the false premise?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 10:48 PM   #284
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
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.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 10:54 PM   #285
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com