2015 Warmest Year on Record

[BuzzStone]

If normal economics dictates it, sure.....not if it is government pushed by a pseudo science.
All the alternative sources require massive subsidies to make it worth while.
There is no impact on climate change. The computer models cannot replicate past Climate, let alone the future. Not to mention the falsification of data. I have a cousin who is a professor at Princeton, heavily invested in "climate change" She dropped me on FB, every was emotion based......she could not refute opposing data......so she ran away.

I don't mind opposing data. Although I have already stated I don't have enough information to have a valid opinion on this subject. Why do you say alternative sources require subsidies? I bought a hybrid car which uses alternative source with no subsidy at all. Was not cost prohibitive at all.

 

[Animal02]

I don't mind opposing data. Although I have already stated I don't have enough information to have a valid opinion on this subject. Why do you say alternative sources require subsidies? I bought a hybrid car which uses alternative source with no subsidy at all. Was not cost prohibitive at all.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...hout-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@BuzzStone

Electric cars wouldn't be viable without huge government subsidies. Even if they were, where do you think the power comes from to charge their batteries? A power outlet at an owners home, on a local grid, most likely powered by coal / nuke.

Solar isn't a viable form of mass energy production and doesn't appear likely to be in even my kids lifetimes. It is also very carbon heavy requiring lots of energy to produce the solar panels which also involve the use of toxins and rare earth minerals in their manufacture.

Solar also not viable, too inefficient, and local communities don't tend to want wind farms near them. Geothermal can't meet demands.

None of these so called clean forms of energy are viable sources of power generation today and this doesn't appear likely to change barring some technological breakthroughs.

 

[BuzzStone]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...hout-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode

Thanks will read through these as soon as I get a longer break at work.

 

[BuzzStone]

@BuzzStone

Electric cars wouldn't be viable without huge government subsidies. Even if they were, where do you think the power comes from to charge their batteries? A power outlet at an owners home, on a local grid, most likely powered by coal / nuke.

Solar isn't a viable form of mass energy production and doesn't appear likely to be in even my kids lifetimes. It is also very carbon heavy requiring lots of energy to produce the solar panels which also involve the use of toxins and rare earth minerals in their manufacture.

Solar also not viable, too inefficient, and local communities don't tend to want wind farms near them. Geothermal can't meet demands.

None of these so called clean forms of energy are viable sources of power generation today and this doesn't appear likely to change barring some technological breakthroughs.

At the risk of exposing my ignorance on the subject what is wrong with Nuclear energy? That seems to be a fairly clean way to power our grid to supply electricity to electric vehicles.
It seems to me the Left just wants to complain that all energy sources are bad and should be outlawed, and the right just wants to produce the most energy possible in the worst possible ways with no regard for the environment at all.

If we could all discuss these things together and make better more efficient ways of producing solar panels, trap wind energy better, ext. We should be able to produce cleaner energy more efficiently if we stop with the arguing and just figure out ways to leave the world a better place than we found it.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

At the risk of exposing my ignorance on the subject what is wrong with Nuclear energy? That seems to be a fairly clean way to power our grid to supply electricity to electric vehicles.
It seems to me the Left just wants to complain that all energy sources are bad and should be outlawed, and the right just wants to produce the most energy possible in the worst possible ways with no regard for the environment at all.

If we could all discuss these things together and make better more efficient ways of producing solar panels, trap wind energy better, ext. We should be able to produce cleaner energy more efficiently if we stop with the arguing and just figure out ways to leave the world a better place than we found it.

I totally agree about nuclear. I think outside of hydro, geo-thermal, wind, iris the cleanest form of production. Unlike those others it is capable of providing all the necessary power we need.

Problem is folks don't want any in their back yards as far as new plants go. 3 mile island and the meltdown at ?Fukashima? In Japan have people scared of nuclear.

There is little good reason to prevent current nuclear plants from expanding / adding new reactors, but that has been pretty much squashed by opponents of nuclear for the last few decades. The government is very hesitant to allow new reactors.

Edit
A new pickle regarding nuclear is where to store nuclear wast. The Obama administration pretty much threw big monkey wrench into the waste storage issue.

 

[Animal02]

At the risk of exposing my ignorance on the subject what is wrong with Nuclear energy? That seems to be a fairly clean way to power our grid to supply electricity to electric vehicles.
It seems to me the Left just wants to complain that all energy sources are bad and should be outlawed, and the right just wants to produce the most energy possible in the worst possible ways with no regard for the environment at all.

If we could all discuss these things together and make better more efficient ways of producing solar panels, trap wind energy better, ext. We should be able to produce cleaner energy more efficiently if we stop with the arguing and just figure out ways to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Nothing in wrong with Nuke energy......except the guvmint regulation and litigation from the tree hugger that drive up the cost.

 

[Animal02]

This has to be one of the most stupid comments I've ever read on the internet. Talking to someone is not a crime. Do you have any idea how many representatives (business and government) these guys have spoken to in the last 2 years? I would argue its at least over 100 different countries. You could literally pick any major country and find this many or more that had conversations with dozens of folks along the way over the last 2 years.

I just read another article in the paper this weekend about how Trump was trying to build a Trump Tower in Russia in 2015. OH NO! And who do you think all this information keeps leaking from? All these private phone conversations? Its the intel agencies. I don't trust them as far as I can pee. Its a silent coup.

"Boris Epshteyn –pro Russia advocate, official spokesman for Trump on the cable news networks who was fired this weekend." I mean, this comment is just simply hilarious. Where did you get your degree from? SO WHAT.

So you should either move on, or come back and provide real evidence. Someone having a conversation with someone is not evidence of anything other than having a conversation with someone.

Not only that, can you recall every conversation you have had with every individual in the last 6 month? I might be able to list a third of them.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Any of you guys catch Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent tweets?


This is like saying because I can predict at a particular point in time the exact location of a car travelling at a constant speed in a constant direction, I can therefore predict the same for a leaf blowing out of a tree in a strong storm. When leaf blowing models historically have proven false. Its just so sad, and its destructive to anybody who fights for real science. Our local TV station has a "3 degree guarantee" where they give $100 to charity every day they predict the high temperature for the day within +/- 3 degrees. So a 6 degree range, predicted only 1 day in advance. And they're wrong about 1/3rd of the time. False arrogance just makes me embarrassed for some of these people.

 

[AE 87]

Any of you guys catch Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent tweets?


This is like saying because I can predict at a particular point in time the exact location of a car travelling at a constant speed in a constant direction, I can therefore predict the same for a leaf blowing out of a tree in a strong storm. When leaf blowing models historically have proven false. Its just so sad, and its destructive to anybody who fights for real science. Our local TV station has a "3 degree guarantee" where they give $100 to charity every day they predict the high temperature for the day within +/- 3 degrees. So a 6 degree range, predicted only 1 day in advance. And they're wrong about 1/3rd of the time. False arrogance just makes me embarrassed for some of these people.

Part of the Liberal Fundamentalist creed is faith in "Big Science." Most of the true believers don't even pretend to know the scientific evidence and evidence-based argumentation for their view on controverted topics. It is enough for them to assert consensus and suggest that any disagreement relies on either bogus big money research or a deranged belief in conspiracy theories.

As a result, they can't have a rational conversation but must rely on either pointing to what their authorities say or personally attacking those who disagree.

Now, all of what I've said here is not a personal attack on anyone but rather a part of the definition of what I mean by Liberal Fundamentalists.

 

[BuzzStone]

Any of you guys catch Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent tweets?


This is like saying because I can predict at a particular point in time the exact location of a car travelling at a constant speed in a constant direction, I can therefore predict the same for a leaf blowing out of a tree in a strong storm. When leaf blowing models historically have proven false. Its just so sad, and its destructive to anybody who fights for real science. Our local TV station has a "3 degree guarantee" where they give $100 to charity every day they predict the high temperature for the day within +/- 3 degrees. So a 6 degree range, predicted only 1 day in advance. And they're wrong about 1/3rd of the time. False arrogance just makes me embarrassed for some of these people.

Cant see the tweet can you just give text? Twitter blocked on my work intranet

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Tyson is upheld by the left as a genius...for a leftist I guess he is. Sad state for them....

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Cant see the tweet can you just give text? Twitter blocked on my work intranet

He basically was trolling people skeptical of climate models by saying none of them were out questioning the accuracy of the solar eclipse.

 

[BuzzStone]

He basically was trolling people skeptical of climate models by saying none of them were out questioning the accuracy of the solar eclipse.

Well that's true many people trust science until it goes against their unfounded beliefs. I mean people that think the earth is flat or 6000 years old still believed the eclipse predictions were accurate.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Well that's true many people trust science until it goes against their unfounded beliefs. I mean people that think the earth is flat or 6000 years old still believed the eclipse predictions were accurate.

That's where you need to read the other part of my post again. If a car is travelling at a fixed speed in a fixed direction, its not very difficult to predict where it will be in the future at any point in time. Climate models are completely different - thats the part of my analogy where a leaf blows off a tree in a storm and you build models to predict where it will blow.

He did himself a huge disservice by trying to play political hack using a completely ridiculous analogy. Instead of making a point, all he does is reinforce the existing distrust over people like him.

 

[BuzzStone]

That's where you need to read the other part of my post again. If a car is travelling at a fixed speed in a fixed direction, its not very difficult to predict where it will be in the future at any point in time. Climate models are completely different - thats the part of my analogy where a leaf blows off a tree in a storm and you build models to predict where it will blow.

He did himself a huge disservice by trying to play political hack using a completely ridiculous analogy. Instead of making a point, all he does is reinforce the existing distrust over people like him.

I understand what your saying, but I do agree if your going to say a particular scientist is wrong about a subject you should have some data to back it up. That is if that scientist has actual evidence. If your going to say a particular climate scientist data is false you should have some evidence to back it up.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I understand what your saying, but I do agree if your going to say a particular scientist is wrong about a subject you should have some data to back it up. That is if that scientist has actual evidence. If your going to say a particular climate scientist data is false you should have some evidence to back it up.

The number of accurate climate models = zero. There is your evidence and it's 100 %.

 

[Animal02]

I understand what your saying, but I do agree if your going to say a particular scientist is wrong about a subject you should have some data to back it up. That is if that scientist has actual evidence. If your going to say a particular climate scientist data is false you should have some evidence to back it up.

...

 

[Animal02]

Anyone who thinks Russia is a nothing burger is deluded. Too much evidence out already for that to be true. Oh, that's right, I forgot. The CIA, the NSA, the FBI and eight other agencies are all lying. Of course, how silly of me.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...ting-that-they-lied-about-russia-4b1db7c8c63d

 

[BuzzStone]

The number of accurate climate models = zero. There is your evidence and it's 100 %.

Im not argueing with you on that, I have seen no evidence. I have stated numerous times in this thread and for the most part I am getting personal opinions and debatable sources. If you say there are zero accurate climate models how can you say there is no such thing as climate change? Shouldn't you be agnostic with me on the subject?