• 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.
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?
Trust, of people who did not deserve it, and money. I suppose you could go farther back and blame State-subsidized research. The appeal for research money plays better if the research topic has important implications, and what's more important than saving Earth?
 
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.

i wonder if that would happen here too. maybe we could try it. i know you usually don't do it, but could you for once post logic and reason here, so i can see the reactions?
 
Trust, of people who did not deserve it, and money. I suppose you could go farther back and blame State-subsidized research. The appeal for research money plays better if the research topic has important implications, and what's more important than saving Earth?
Please provide detailed, verifiable and unbiased evidence support those claims.
 
i wonder if that would happen here too. maybe we could try it. i know you usually don't do it, but could you for once post logic and reason here, so i can see the reactions?
Sure. Post 631.

You might not like it that I'm refusing to entertain discussion of a "science subject" on the "politics" forum. But it is a JREF mod rule that science of AGW is discussed in the Science forum, in one moderated thread. So well, tough.
 
Last edited:
Trust, of people who did not deserve it, and money. I suppose you could go farther back and blame State-subsidized research. The appeal for research money plays better if the research topic has important implications, and what's more important than saving Earth?

A good question to ponder is whether "State supported research" may not be a proper function of (in the US) state governments, not the fed. I've identified certain things in #631 related to national security, and those can be said to be on that basis, functions of the federal government.

But even there we didn't get into massive subsidies of fantasy green nonsense, like the "hydrogen economy".

And the Very Important Studies on cows farting.
 
Why won't you answer me mhaze?

Trust, of people who did not deserve it, and money. I suppose you could go farther back and blame State-subsidized research. The appeal for research money plays better if the research topic has important implications, and what's more important than saving Earth?
Please provide detailed, verifiable and unbiased evidence support those claims.

I'm in agreement with David.
 
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.

Don't tell me the grassy knoller is actually a dyed in the wool grassy knoller as well! That would be simply precious!

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.

:)

So you are nationalizing nuclear power?
What is the feedstock for your methanol production?
please, provide at least a rough estimate how long your plan will take to acheive a fossil carbon negative (a state where we are actually net removing and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere) footing?
What is the total cost of your plan?
 
Last edited:
Sure. Post 631.

You might not like it that I'm refusing to entertain discussion of a "science subject" on the "politics" forum. But it is a JREF mod rule that science of AGW is discussed in the Science forum, in one moderated thread. So well, tough.

wow post 631 you would call reasonable and logic? to me it looks more like totalitarism. what do you mean by squashing the opposition? can you explain that reasonable and logically?
 
Hehe nice

You can still feel free to link me your answer in the above thread.
Exactly. That thread is a great thread where, for the most part, the science of the topic is discussed. Not surprisingly, you won't see much of mhaze in there.

You will find Malcolm but you will find Malcolm, rather then debating the science, merely regurgitates unscientific blogs (mostly one).

Both have right wing opinions. Neither provide any science. Yet laughingly, they call those following the science, "believers".
 
Last edited:
You might not like it that I'm refusing to entertain discussion of a "science subject" on the "politics" forum. But it is a JREF mod rule that science of AGW is discussed in the Science forum, in one moderated thread. So well, tough.

From mhaze's very first post in this thread:
If you honestly say that, you need to study the matter a bit more. Navier stokes applies? Eh?

How about that radiation balance upper atmosphere issue? Simple math?

Change in atmospheric water balance and albedo with a given change in CO2?


Granted, it's only a white lie and tiny bit of hypocrisy. But then we have this rant against "greenies" and their advocacy of Big Government:
What I think is that various warmers posting here are just relapsing into posting dogma, things that their belief structures tell them are true. They, including you, are uncomfortable going into a straight out discussion about adaptation vs mitigation, doing nothing as a viable option, and are loath to have the premises questioned. Those premises include Big Government is Good and will Save the Planet.

... followed by an anti-green energy plan that advocates for Big Government:
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.


With all the lies, double-talk and hypocrisy, I'm beginning to suspect mhaze is a GOP presidential candidate.

And based on entertainment value and the general tone of hostility, I'm guessing Newt Gingrich.
 
Presumably, then, you are avidly anti-nuclear then, given all the state subsidized research it involves...

Haven't you figured out that if they LIKE it, then it's in a different category. Like all people who thirst for dictatorship, they imagine that they will be the one in control, or able to suck up enough to get a bigger "taste".
 
So you are nationalizing nuclear power?
What is the feedstock for your methanol production?
please, provide at least a rough estimate how long your plan will take to acheive a fossil carbon negative (a state where we are actually net removing and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere) footing?
What is the total cost of your plan?

1. No, I thought it was obvious that private companies such as now do infrastructure and utilities would be involved.

2. Methane. Other feedstocks are possible but more expensive. No subsidies for less efficient options.

3. Who? One country? The world?

4. Cost? To who? It's all private industry. Wrong question, right question is what are the profits. From production of profits comes a healthy economy, jobs, and the ability to tax.
 
Last edited:
wow post 631 you would call reasonable and logic? to me it looks more like totalitarism. what do you mean by squashing the opposition? can you explain that reasonable and logically?
Sure. If a legal protest against a nuclear plant is brought alleging damage to the snail darter population, then me and my minions put on jackboots, and go and squash every snail darter. If they try to hide, we bring out the handy dandy DDT.

A ruthless totalitarian method for dealing with snail darters, and cruel and oppressive to our little non voting not sentient friends of Gaia. Shocking?

:)

Hehe nice

You can still feel free to link me your answer in the above thread.

For a change...that is the RIGHT ANSWER.

If you knew the very first thing about any of this, you would have known that cow farts are not the issue with cows and methane.

But as is typical, you know nothing, and present no facts.

Ben you need to follow Cardinal Rules of AGW.

1. Does it sound totally ridiculous?
2a. YES - then it is related to AGW.
2b. NO - then it is still related to AGW.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...in-plastic-tank-for-global-warming-study.html
 
Last edited:
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.


Pffft! You call that a proper list? Where's the "Climate change is a giant global scam concocted by money-hungry scientists to make a quick buck" option? Or the "Climate change is a invention of the leftist/liberal environmentalist lobby to impose their green world view on everyone" option?
 
Ben you need to follow Cardinal Rules of AGW.

1. Does it sound totally ridiculous?
2a. YES - then it is related to AGW.
2b. NO - then it is still related to AGW.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...in-plastic-tank-for-global-warming-study.html

I don't follow your point. Cow stomachs create methane, cow burps expel methane, methane is a greenhouse gas, we have alot of cows. Many studies later, many estimates of the impact, cows deemed relevant. Where does your argument from incredulity come in?
 
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.
:boxedin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom