hot enough for ya?

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

Gene wrote: You . . refuse to change your lifestyle and diet to preserve your life.
on this, you are both ignorant and wrong. as for the rest, time will tell.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5708
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: East USA

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

dead man walking wrote:
Gene wrote: You . . refuse to change your lifestyle and diet to preserve your life.
on this, you are both ignorant and wrong. as for the rest, time will tell.
Don't change the subject back to me. I'm not the one who advertises their doom like a hair shirt, hoping to leave a legacy of "progress". I escaped metabolic syndrome and shitting my britches a couple of times a week. I have a heart attack risk of four percent over the next quarter century. I have to work every fucking day to stay on this bitch too.

You can fix yourself. Maybe the Warburg hypothesis is total bulllshit. The guy who proposed it has a lot more street cred than the legions of clowns who opine about the "Earth's Temperature", not one of whom has ever won a Nobel Prize for their science.

What the do you have to lose, besides your Martinis or beer in the evening?


If the science were settled about climate change we would be busting our collective asses to develop effective low carbon energy that serves human needs. We would not be pissing resources away on windmills or solar cells. We would not be goofing off with turning food into fuel.

We'd be building breeder reactors and PACER reactors until we got plasma fusion to work. Breeder reactors make the best use of the uranium. We'd insure that the plutonium made would be the isotope that is not optimal for bomb manufacture. We would burn it. We would move on to Thorium, which is five times more abundant than Uranium and which was tested in the late 1970s in the US and is being tested today in India and China.

PACER is a modified inertial fusion that uses fissiles to enhance the reaction. We would capture the reaction products, recycle them and use the heat for power.


When I want to know what people are doing I follow the money. When people are wanking with windmills I know I'm being bullshitted. Especially in Germany, whose minsters chatter about solar cells while tearing up Medieval villages to strip mine the coal that lies under them.

Follow the money.


Here, go educate yourself about real low carbon energy source that serve human needs, not Corporate needs. Even a capitalist and "denier" like me knows that fossil fuels are running out. We cannot rely upon them. We need to transition to real industrial sources of power.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/658936

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Sa ... Experiment

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/NA ... rience.pdf

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knofNX7HCbg[/youtube]
Don't like yourself too much.

User avatar

DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by DrDonkeyLove »

Gene comes out swinging with sciency info plus old school IGx ad hominem attacks. Feels like the old days. (*wipes single tear)
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

perhaps you can explain gene's emotional distress. i noted that he is wrong about me, which appears to have ignited his inner curtis lemay
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 13101
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod »

Gene wrote:
dead man walking wrote:
Gene wrote: You . . refuse to change your lifestyle and diet to preserve your life.
on this, you are both ignorant and wrong. as for the rest, time will tell.
When I want to know what people are doing I follow the money. When people are wanking with windmills I know I'm being bullshitted. Especially in Germany, whose minsters chatter about solar cells while tearing up Medieval villages to strip mine the coal that lies under them.

Follow the money.
Indeed

All you have to do to retrieve fossil fuels and burn them is buy a shovel and start digging. You're not going to match that cost with anything.

All the hidden costs to the environment via global warming and stuff? That's for the grand-kids to worry about.

Human history is full of blowing off the long term for short term gain.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar

DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by DrDonkeyLove »

dead man walking wrote:perhaps you can explain gene's emotional distress. i noted that he is wrong about me, which appears to have ignited his inner curtis lemay
I haven't a clue what gets Gene or anyone here stirred up, but it's usually entertaining. Could be senator Sheldon Whitehouse's idea to go after "deniers" via RICO statutes or other jackbootery has him feeling badly about Amerikkka (or maybe that's just me).

Could also be that any diet w/o alcohol leaves one cranky.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21342
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

nafod wrote:Human history is full of blowing off the long term for short term gain.
Case and point: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ns-in-coal

But seriously, the ones who are choosing fossil fuels (i.e. cheap energy) in droves are the world's poor who are trying to survive and make better lives for their families.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar

DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by DrDonkeyLove »

Turdacious wrote:
nafod wrote:Human history is full of blowing off the long term for short term gain.
Case and point: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ns-in-coal

But seriously, the ones who are choosing fossil fuels (i.e. cheap energy) in droves are the world's poor who are trying to survive and make better lives for their families.
Here's a nice chart
Image
I haven't heard much from Warmanistas as to how we'll protect the poor and lower classes from slipping back into more extreme poverty after we make everything in the world more expensive via increasing the cost of energy through their assorted carbon reduction schemes.

Of coarse, I'm of the opinion that the left hates the poor as much or more than evil conservatives do.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
nafod wrote:Human history is full of blowing off the long term for short term gain.
Case and point: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ns-in-coal

But seriously, the ones who are choosing fossil fuels (i.e. cheap energy) in droves are the world's poor who are trying to survive and make better lives for their families.
Here's a nice chart
Image
I haven't heard much from Warmanistas as to how we'll protect the poor and lower classes from slipping back into more extreme poverty after we make everything in the world more expensive via increasing the cost of energy through their assorted carbon reduction schemes.

Of coarse, I'm of the opinion that the left hates the poor as much or more than evil conservatives do.
the world is like an oversized coal-mining town. coal allows us to pay the bills, while killing off the miners with black-lung and collapses. can't spend money on safety. it would raise the price of coal.

there are millions of premature deaths annually from air pollution--recent world health report. pre-civil-war displacement of rural people in syria--and subsequent conflict--was driven in part by severe drought, caused in part by warming. add the price tag for the iraq wars, which we fought because of oil. plus other shit. how do you calculate the cost of "cheap energy?"

as nafod implied, you can't make rational decisions if you don't include all the costs in your economic arithmetic.

i grow increasingly weary of the sound and fury of the idiot's tale.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5708
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: East USA

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

nafod wrote:All the hidden costs to the environment via global warming and stuff? That's for the grand-kids to worry about.

Human history is full of blowing off the long term for short term gain.
History is also full of scams and idiotic mass movements. Salem Witchcraft Trials, the Roman Catholic Church perverting a decent religion into a government that retarded the growth of knowledge and later waged purges upon "heretics", Lysenko retarding Soviet biological science due to ideological reasons.... Hitler's Germany, the whole fucking dismal Marxist/Leninist/Maoist experience.

If the science was mature and compelling we'd have good estimates of Cost/Benefit analysis such that we could make good judgments. Coal is definitely a shitty source of power. Much better for chemical feedstocks than energy.

Every Climate Change person should screaming for nuclear reactors, the ultimate source of low carbon power. Instead they're fucking off with windmills and solar cells, both of which are shitty returns on carbon investment. Corn based ethanol is almost a pathetic joke as well.

This choice of modes of power says a lot. Says that they don't think this out and don't really want effective change.

The greatest gainers in total electric power share has been natural gas. NG is not "clean". It too produces CO2. Methane has a short half life in air but is much better as a greenhouse gas. If the world is really on the brink of runaway fracking for NG is not a good idea nor is burning NG for power a good idea.

Corporate America and Corporate Europe don't get such hot quarterly profits on nuke reactors cause they have multi year development cycles and very long payoffs. They do great on a quarterly basis with windmills and solar cells, don't they? They do fantastic with gas turbines.

These players fund the Corporate foundations and lobby for "climate science" funding. Especially members of the US Climate Action Partnership. see www.us-cap.org

In exchange for their support they get tax payers to bankroll their quick buck projects like wind power and solar cells. Others get money for turning natural gas and petroleum into corn, which is then turned into ethanol, probably at a net loss. The big winners are NG power generation, which has risen a great deal over the years, faster still with Shale Gas lowering NG prices. Even traditional nuke plants are hurting due to NG produced electricity.

Pretty neat scam - you get tax payers to bankroll your R&D, you get a subsidy, you get to pretend to save the planet....
Last edited by Gene on Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't like yourself too much.


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5708
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: East USA

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

dead man walking wrote:perhaps you can explain gene's emotional distress. i noted that he is wrong about me, which appears to have ignited his inner curtis lemay
People like, DMW, irritate the living fuck out of me.


I note, with some regret, that you did not bother to comment on the technical content I offered here.

You're not really interested in solving any problems, are you? You just want to taunt people here, to feel good about yourself.
Don't like yourself too much.

User avatar

DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by DrDonkeyLove »

from a WSJ article, "How to Lower U.S. Living Standards"
California Gov. Jerry Brown has a vision: When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, he wants his fellow Californians to emulate North Koreans. Meanwhile, many of Mr. Brown’s fellow Democrats—including President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders—will settle for putting Americans on a par with residents of Mexico.

That’s the essence of the climate-change agenda of America’s most prominent Democrats. They have pledged to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, (aka 80 by 50). Their plan will take those emissions to levels that are common today in countries far poorer than the U.S.
I'm definitely an anthropogenic climate change skeptic but think that reasonably reducing burning carbon is a good idea for many reasons. Yet, for all their dire predictions and wailing, the left seems fixated on crony gov't schemes that benefit the connected rich (Solyndra) and limit peoples freedom and living standards (cap & trade). The right seems only interested in doing nothing at all unless it benefits their crony patrons.

Feels like both sides are unserious about carbon generated pollution because the controversy is much more lucrative. Similar to immigration, the Dems who love the planet so very much had 2 solid years from 2008 to 2010 to do something about "climate change" yet did nothing. There are cynical and self interested reasons for that.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

recent historical footnote: cap and trade is the successful market-based mechanism used to address sulfur pollution from coal burning. because it is "market-based"--i.e. specifies outcome but allows company to decide how to achieve it--it was favored by republicans. until it wasn't.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

Gene wrote: You're not really interested in solving any problems, are you? You just want to taunt people here, to feel good about yourself.
you're projecting, gene.

and yes, corn-based ethanol is stupid.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21342
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

dead man walking wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
nafod wrote:Human history is full of blowing off the long term for short term gain.
Case and point: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ns-in-coal

But seriously, the ones who are choosing fossil fuels (i.e. cheap energy) in droves are the world's poor who are trying to survive and make better lives for their families.
Here's a nice chart
Image
I haven't heard much from Warmanistas as to how we'll protect the poor and lower classes from slipping back into more extreme poverty after we make everything in the world more expensive via increasing the cost of energy through their assorted carbon reduction schemes.

Of coarse, I'm of the opinion that the left hates the poor as much or more than evil conservatives do.
the world is like an oversized coal-mining town. coal allows us to pay the bills, while killing off the miners with black-lung and collapses. can't spend money on safety. it would raise the price of coal.

there are millions of premature deaths annually from air pollution--recent world health report. pre-civil-war displacement of rural people in syria--and subsequent conflict--was driven in part by severe drought, caused in part by warming. add the price tag for the iraq wars, which we fought because of oil. plus other shit. how do you calculate the cost of "cheap energy?"

as nafod implied, you can't make rational decisions if you don't include all the costs in your economic arithmetic.

i grow increasingly weary of the sound and fury of the idiot's tale.
But poor countries don't-- which is why they consistently tell the climate change crowd to go fuck themselves. Balance pertains.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5708
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: East USA

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

dead man walking wrote:
Gene wrote: You're not really interested in solving any problems, are you? You just want to taunt people here, to feel good about yourself.
you're projecting, gene.

and yes, corn-based ethanol is stupid.
Nice dodge. What do you think of nuclear power?
Don't like yourself too much.


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

zero carbon and 10,000 years of risk with the waste.

as with climate change, the challenge in resolving the issue is politics more than science.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5708
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: East USA

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

dead man walking wrote:zero carbon and 10,000 years of risk with the waste.
Most of the resistance to nuclear came from the coal and oil industries. They ginned up terror of it. Greens sometimes don't realize who is pulling their strings.

The hotter the isotope the faster it cools down. The French have been managing waste for ages. Most of the "waste" is inert U-238, which can be bred into plutonium then burned. Heck, some of the U-235 is left behind, which can be reconcentrated and burned.

Fusion has worked since 1954. Just isn't economical to burn plasma yet. There are millions of years of deuterium in the Earth's oceans. PACER would work today. Right fucking now.

Forget fucking wind power and solar. Those are for rich yuppies living in the hills. Fuck that shit.
Don't like yourself too much.


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

WASHINGTON — President Xi Jinping of China will make a landmark commitment on Friday to start a national program in 2017 that will limit and put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, Obama administration officials said Thursday.

The move to create a so-called cap-and-trade system would be a substantial step by the world’s largest polluter to reduce emissions from major industries, including steel, cement, paper and electric power.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by DrDonkeyLove »

dead man walking wrote:
WASHINGTON — President Xi Jinping of China will make a landmark commitment on Friday to start a national program in 2017 that will limit and put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, Obama administration officials said Thursday.
What Obama administration officials say cannot be counted on as true at all (see "if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan").
dead man walking wrote:
The move to create a so-called cap-and-trade system would be a substantial step by the world’s largest polluter to reduce emissions from major industries, including steel, cement, paper and electric power.
Regardless of dubious climate change assistance, this is might be good news for anyone who breathes in China. I trust Xi only slightly more than Obama.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

exxon's 1981 predictions for global warming were on target

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/25/glo ... -332037769
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

both global warming and evolution!
A recently published study has found that global warming along with evolution is reshaping the bodies of American bumblebees. Tongues on two of the Rocky Mountain species of bumblebees now are approximately 25% shorter than they were four decades ago. The bee has evolved that way due to climate change altering wildflowers they feed from, says a study that was published on Thursday in Science
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21342
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

dead man walking wrote:both global warming and evolution!
A recently published study has found that global warming along with evolution is reshaping the bodies of American bumblebees. Tongues on two of the Rocky Mountain species of bumblebees now are approximately 25% shorter than they were four decades ago. The bee has evolved that way due to climate change altering wildflowers they feed from, says a study that was published on Thursday in Science
So even biology studies have to be justified in terms of climate change to get funding now?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar

Freki
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2804
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:51 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Freki »

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.


http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/mira ... 7555674611
"The reason that 'guru' is such a popular word is because 'charlatan' is so hard to spell."
@GSElevator: Can we please stop calling them hipsters and go back to calling them pussies?
Blood eagles solve everything.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21342
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

A new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it's been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall.

In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.

That gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1 ... rming-over

What do climate science and phrenology have in common?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

Post Reply