• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives and climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL to your proposal; I consider that discussing it.

Which is why reasonable people rarely seek to engage and participate in considered discussions on such issues with you.

Other than NWO imposing these things how well do you think it'll work?...

and right back into the grassy knolls you leap. If you would like to discuss potential policy issues sans the conspiracy and hyperpartisan rhetorical hyperbole I would be happy to discuss such issues with you. Policy is interesting and does need input from the range of reasonable considerations.
 
...right back into the grassy knolls you leap. ....
Not really, and also, you might not want to use the "grassy knoll" phrase in this context unless you really understand the issues about the Kennedy murder. I doubt that could be the case.

But since you want to talk policy I'll offer my fix for the problems of the US.

  • The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.
  • Methanol, produced from methane, which we have an abundance of, is introduced into gas stations at a market price, which is easily less than gasoline and diesel per gallon of gasoline equivalent. No new facilities or government money is required for this.
  • Oil shale, conventional drilling, fraccing, oil sands, and the Keystone pipeline would be fast tracked. New oil shale in Colorado and Utah would be fast tracked as a national security matter.
  • Government subsidies for wind and solar farms cease, excepting where a cost benefit analysis shows true feasibility. Here I am thinking of remote locations, small towns in good locations, islands and so forth. For these locations, equipment - wind and solar - could simply be moved from substandard locations where it now exists.
The result of the above policies would be a change to several hundred billion positive balance of payments, energy independence within a decade, two decades worst case, cheaper gas for cars in the US, and cheaper home heating and cooling for our houses.

The industry that fueled that last two decades of growth in the US was housing, the industry that will fuel the next two decades of growth is energy. The future that I aim have exist, and which I have and will worked toward, is a positive one.

You will note there's no big government scam blithely said to be "cap and trade" or "carbon taxes" in my vision. However, those who are concerned with net carbon emissions will note that the plan includes a huge increase in nuclear power achieved by neutering the anti-nuclear tactics of the radical greenies and using private funding. If you are concerned with carbon, you can easily calculate the net effect of this scale of nuclear power. If you cannot do that, I might do it for you if you asked politely and I wasn't feeling lazy at the moment.

:)
 
Last edited:
Science-deniers continue to deny science and offer AC/DC videos

Sorry. That was so childish of me.. Sometimes I forget I'm supposed to act all serious and adult like. I should have posted link to something serious and adult like, in the eyes of hysterical alarmist warmers. I need to think about communicating on the level of, well, those whom I am talking with. Okay. Will you accept my apologies. Here'ya go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw

And I'd like to invite you to a barbeque. A penquin roast. Shot'em myself. Juicy, tasty birds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4

You + are = you're

as in "You're an idiot."

:) :)
I wouldn't say that, but the phrase "useful idiot" has very different meanings.
 
Last edited:
Not really, and also, you might not want to use the "grassy knoll" phrase in this context unless you really understand the issues about the Kennedy murder. I doubt that could be the case.

But since you want to talk policy I'll offer my fix for the problems of the US.

  • The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.
  • Methanol, produced from methane, which we have an abundance of, is introduced into gas stations at a market price, which is easily less than gasoline and diesel per gallon of gasoline equivalent. No new facilities or government money is required for this.
  • Oil shale, conventional drilling, fraccing, oil sands, and the Keystone pipeline would be fast tracked. New oil shale in Colorado and Utah would be fast tracked as a national security matter.
  • Government subsidies for wind and solar farms cease, excepting where a cost benefit analysis shows true feasibility. Here I am thinking of remote locations, small towns in good locations, islands and so forth. For these locations, equipment - wind and solar - could simply be moved from substandard locations where it now exists.
The result of the above policies would be a change to several hundred billion positive balance of payments, energy independence within a decade, two decades worst case, cheaper gas for cars in the US, and cheaper home heating and cooling for our houses.

The industry that fueled that last two decades of growth in the US was housing, the industry that will fuel the next two decades of growth is energy. The future that I aim have exist, and which I have and will worked toward, is a positive one.

You will note there's no big government scam blithely said to be "cap and trade" or "carbon taxes" in my vision. However, those who are concerned with net carbon emissions will note that the plan includes a huge increase in nuclear power achieved by neutering the anti-nuclear tactics of the radical greenies and using private funding. If you are concerned with carbon, you can easily calculate the net effect of this scale of nuclear power. If you cannot do that, I might do it for you if you asked politely and I wasn't feeling lazy at the moment.

:)


An excellent plan! I really like the 20-year development plans, especially when currently running US reactors are 40-year-old designs or worse.

Except for the methanol part which has significant problems - methanol is just nasty stuff with lawsuit written all over it.

Pursuing cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, or the like are much better options.
 
Last edited:
An excellent plan! I really like the 20-year development plans, especially when currently running US reactors are 40-year-old designs or worse.

Except for the methanol part which has significant problems - methanol is just nasty stuff with lawsuit written all over it.

Pursuing cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, or the like are much better options.

Well, please note it's not a "nice guy" plan. I'm arguing for cutting into a part of civil liberties to get those built.

Methanol isn't that bad. Really. Basically could go into any flex fuel car. Oh, a clarification - I'm talking M85 here, 85% methanol, 15% gasoline. The reason for methanol is it is already the 5th largest production industrial chemical. Virtually any quantity you want, $1.20 per gallon. No big program needed, no new plants, just start using it.
 
Last edited:
The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.


I don't think taking away peoples' rights to implement your government payout to the nuclear industry is a very good idea.

Would maze get behind an alternative energy plan that said ...

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to solar, wind, hydro and geothermal systems by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of these systems, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding.


Call me cynical, but if that didn't have him crying the word, "socialism" I'd be awfully surprised.
 
I don't think taking away peoples' rights to implement your government payout to the nuclear industry is a very good idea.

Would maze get behind an alternative energy plan that said ...

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to solar, wind, hydro and geothermal systems by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of these systems, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding.


Call me cynical, but if that didn't have him crying the word, "socialism" I'd be awfully surprised.

Hydro is already (mostly) maxed out (because it has long been the easiest to implement), geothermal expansion is stupidly restricted in the western US by the EPA and their stooges (not an easy fix, by law, yes, deliberately), and solar and wind are uneconomic, especially considering the toxic mix of materials that go into their manufacture - there's just no future there (research yes, terrestrial implementation no).

;)
 
Hydro is already (mostly) maxed out (because it has long been the easiest to implement), geothermal expansion is stupidly restricted in the western US by the EPA and their stooges (not an easy fix, by law, yes, deliberately), and solar and wind are uneconomic, especially considering the toxic mix of materials that go into their manufacture - there's just no future there (research yes, terrestrial implementation no).

;)


Please tell me that you're winkie indicates you're not being serious.
 
Chuckle, it's interesting how quickly these "conservatives" go from complaining about "socialism" to advocating the big government energy solution of all, all the while insisting on subsidizing fossil fuels by socializing the cost of CO2 emissions.
 
Amazing how the dumb and uninformed people think they can go on for ever like we did.
 
Sorry. That was so childish of me.. Sometimes I forget I'm supposed to act all serious and adult like. I should have posted link to something serious and adult like, in the eyes of hysterical alarmist warmers. I need to think about communicating on the level of, well, those whom I am talking with. Okay. Will you accept my apologies.

"Childish" wasn't the adjective that comes to mind, but it's in the ball park. Especially when you feel the need to describe people that prefer to deal in science and rational thought as "hysterical".

Irregardless, I'm sure you'll continue to dazzle us with your grasp on the subject.
 
This might be handy. Please bold any and all statements that you think are true.

Greenhouse gases exist.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humans are mining fossil carbon.
Mining of carbon is releasing previously sequestered CO2.
Climate change is real.
Climate change is real but is all natural.
Climate change is real and is mostly natural but part human caused.
Climate change is real and is mostly human caused but part natural.
Climate change is real and is all human caused.
 
This might be handy. Please bold any and all statements that you think are true.

Greenhouse gases exist.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humans are mining fossil carbon.
Mining of carbon is releasing previously sequestered CO2.
Climate change is real.

Climate change is real but is all natural.
Climate change is real and is mostly natural but part human caused.
Climate change is real and is mostly human caused but part natural.
Climate change is real and is all human caused.

viola
 
This might be handy. Please bold any and all statements that you think are true.

Greenhouse gases exist.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humans are mining fossil carbon.
Mining of carbon is releasing previously sequestered CO2.
Climate change is real.

Climate change is real but is all natural.
Climate change is real and is mostly natural but part human caused.
Climate change is real and is mostly human caused but part natural.
Climate change is real and is all human caused.

Here you go!
 
I don't think taking away peoples' rights to implement your government payout to the nuclear industry is a very good idea.

Would maze get behind an alternative energy plan that said ...

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to solar, wind, hydro and geothermal systems by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of these systems, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding.


Call me cynical, but if that didn't have him crying the word, "socialism" I'd be awfully surprised.
Ahh....no.

Look, I'm being upfront about how I'd get it done. I'd make it a national security issue (which I do believe it is). Then I'd squash "civil dissent". I don't really want to hear about nuclear plants can't be built or must be delayed because of say, snail darters.

I specifically said this aspect has negatives.

Regarding the question whether I'd support the same method for solar and wind, gosh, of course not. EXCEPT where they were cost justified as previously noted.

"Socialism"???

Everything I proposed was private sector, with the exception of some subsidies for wind and solar. Everything I proposed would make energy cheaper, less subject to disruption due to foreign political problems, both at the pump and down the electric line.

As noted geothermal and hydro are non issues. Yes there may be some areas where geo can be expanded but as a fraction of total energy it will be tiny.

While some people are engaged in recitations of their creed of faith, others would like to move ahead in the real world, with action plans that have actual effects. It's not difficult. This plan as I have proposed it would survive austerity budgets that are coming to the USA, as it struggles to change it's spending from 40% more than revenue, to spending equal to revenue.

The reason it would survive is that it is totally private sector. Fraccing, conventional drilling, nuclear (private issuance of bonds to pay for it, note), methanol (available today in barge quantities, 1.18 - 1.23 per gallon, expansion of methanol supply if needed left to industry).

We are talking increasing industry and business here, that means jobs. Lots of them. Lots of happy people. Some not so happy green religion people. Tough.
 
Last edited:
Then I'd squash "civil dissent". I don't really want to hear about nuclear plants can't be built or must be delayed because of say, snail darters.


You'd squash civil dissent because it might delay nuclear progress?

Welcome to our world.

Civil dissent has delayed progress on Climate Change.

Should we squash you?
 
You'd squash civil dissent because it might delay nuclear progress?

Welcome to our world.

Civil dissent has delayed progress on Climate Change.

Should we squash you?
It's of zero concern to me what you think of my opinions. Concerning your final question, I'm sure you are quite welcome in the parade of radical green zealots who threaten people on the Internet. And elsewhere.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachla...ron-shoot-climate-deniers-glenn-beck-f-hole-0

Because well, that's what you guys do when confronted with logic and reason.
 
Last edited:
Because well, that's what you guys do when confronted with logic and reason.

That's the problem mhaze, we haven't been confronted with any logic or reason on your part. I've asked very kindly a few times what makes the scientists wrong? How are seventy plus percent of the scientific establishment wrong? There are some cases in history where this is the case but not often. So I ask again, what makes them wrong? Without promoting "green zealot" ideals, what makes them wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom