But ,There Is No Global Warming!

Email Print posted by MRFred 09/04/2008 01:51:24 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I'm heading north...

SEE the With Ike bearing down on South Florida Ive decided to skeedattle. The wife has decided to spend a few weeks in Maine. We are pulling the boat, packing our bags and hitting the road. One last thing...this is why our country is heading down the poop chute; the notion that you can believe anything as long as it lines your pockets. Check out the "conservative" compassion about Gustav:
MrFred Pray for us all. This is the tip of the iceburg...so to speak . We are at the tipping point...globally, the Arctic melt will reinforce warming because open water absorbs more of the Sun's energy than ice does and Gustavs will become a common occurrence.
KenTX: Save you prayers.Over the last three years, the United States has experienced historic minimums in terms of hurricane strikes. The generally accepted reason is Global Cooling.
 Global Cooling...perhaps of the neurons of the McCain Palin ticket and the RNC but not on this earth.
< Call A Lie A Lie! | Doesn't get any clearer than this >
 Display:
But ,There Is No Global Warming! | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden)
Yeah I know (none / 0)

Notice how fast everyone has gotten used to seeing 145-150mph storms lately.  Everytime one spins up in the sweet spot it's at least category 4.   That used to be an unusual event.

We just had some of that "global cooling" come barrelling through here.  I haven't seen the eye of a hurricane since the late 70's or early 80's, and then there was no internet so you couldn't see the big picture.  That was kind of interesting to watch. 

by bfaul on 09/04/2008 01:58:43 PM EST

The big numbers (none / 0)
The United States currently uses 3.3Tw of power, this includes all forms of power generation including fuels used for transportation, 2/3 of that is lost to waste heat.

It costs about 10Kw of power for each American. The global average is less than 2Kw, but who wants to live that life style? The good news is we are horribily innefficent in our use of energy and the USA has actually been coming down in average and total energy consumption due to improvements in energy efficencies and conservation. We still have a lot of slack in the system though.

It was mentioned that co-generation might be a really good idea, build smaller power plants, closer to their customers, and harness the waste heat for heating buildings or maybe even piping some of the co2 exhust into a greenhouse complex to boost plant growth and sequester some of it.

The problem with existing nuclear power plants is that we only have about 75 years of uranium left at current usage rates. We have to close the fuel cycle to make em work. Unfortunetly, the only way to close the fuel cycle leads to breader reactors with huge quantities of plutonium as a result. Mining seawater for Uranium is not proving to be economically feasible either. But time will tell. Regardless, the estimated world-wide power demand of 2050 would require us to bring online, somewhere in the world, 1 nuclear plant a week from now to 2050 to make the needed power.

The power problems of 2050 are here and now, considering the time it takes to build and the expected life expectancy of the plants. Nuclear plants WILL have to be part of the solution, but there is no ONE solution that will get us there.

Remember that for every 1 good idea there are usually 99 lousy ones as well. So quit bytching and get to work. The problem needs all of us working on it.

To contain co2 increases to ONLY twice what they are today we have to have most of the new generating capacity be zero carbon emmisions.

by CptRich on 09/06/2008 12:06:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
good post (none / 0)
Thank you for contributing. Please stick around. Its refreshing to talk with someone about energy issues who is not a complete imbecile. BTW, breeder reactors will be a big part of the total solution.

by KenTX on 09/06/2008 12:15:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0)
To be honest Ken, some of us who don't know that much about energy issues are happy to discuss it with folks who know what they talk about AND are willing to discuss it without reducing the argument to DRILL EVERYWHERE NOW!   I think most of us agree that there is no one solution and nuclear energy may be needed.  But I do live in a state that was badly contaminated by radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor, so I will always continue to push the safety aspect of it. 

by desertpear on 09/06/2008 04:15:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Money, mouth (none / 0)

"So quit bytching and get to work."

I've downsized my vehicle, replaced the A/C with a far more efficient unit, put timers on the air conditioning/heating so it goes off when no one is home.  I ride my bicycle to work most of the time.  I've switched to lower energy bulbs, put in solar attic fans and have some panels I'm fixing to install.  I turn off all lights and computers, recycle plastics, paper, aluminum and glass, dumped a couple of appliances I could do without and recently bought a much more efficient washer. 

How about you? 

by bfaul on 09/07/2008 12:48:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're both wrong (none / 0)
but my sympathies are with you Fred. Take care.

by hazmat on 09/04/2008 01:58:52 PM EST

Safe travelling to you and your family... (none / 0)
Have you drydocked the boat or just parked it in the Marina?

I hope you and yours are safe...

:)

by bobo1 on 09/04/2008 01:59:30 PM EST

stay safe Fred! (none / 0)
We need you here.

by desertpear on 09/04/2008 02:24:40 PM EST

Climate change (none / 0)
is a better term, global warming sounds more sexy, but it's overly simplified (and conservatives use it as a defence): some places get warmer, others colder, others drier, others wetter, ... 
overal the climate becomes more EXTREME
(I know you know this, but saying it before one of the local Repugs points out that some places have gotten colder)

anyway strength to you, your family and everyone living there

by callisto on 09/04/2008 04:54:03 PM EST

Special Delivery: KenTX to Mr. Fred (none / 1)
This just in from the scientific community.

“(AP) Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released. Sunday.”

Did you get that? After Katrina, Al Gore promised us that global warming was causing more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes.

Then we didn’t have any major hurricane strikes for a couple of years, so all of the sudden, scientists have concluded that global warming causes fewer hurricanes and weaker hurricanes.

The important point to remember is that regardless of whatever happens with the weather, its a man-made disaster.
 
The planet has warmed one degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years, so the increase is a result of “global warming”.

But when the earth cooled one degree Fahrenheit in a single year in 2007-2008, the reason for the sudden, precipitous drop was “global dimming”.

It’s comforting to know that no matter what happens, environmentalists always have an explanation: American Consumerism is to blame.

by KenTX on 09/05/2008 05:04:26 AM EST

Kenny Texas is redacting as usual (none / 0)
"global warming causes fewer hurricanes and weaker hurricanes"

Kenny leaves out the important word "COULD"

BTW didn't I tell you one of the idiots would jump on the term "global warming", start using "Climate Change" people

by callisto on 09/05/2008 07:18:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about! (none / 1)
Let's call it "climate change", so that no matter what happens, you're covered. If the planet warms, its man-made. If the planet cools, its man-made. If there are more hurricanes, its man-made. If there are fewer hurricanes, its man-made. You have lost control of this issue for all time. Henceforth, whenever you utter the phrase "climate change", you'll be roundly ridiculed. How do you like the way I just fucked you? Was it good for you, pea-brain motherfucker!

by KenTX on 09/05/2008 08:09:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you hate humans, Ken? (none / 0)

You heard it here first.  KenTX doesn't care about the safety of MRFred and his wife.

And he's spouting off that gay-sounding dirty talk again.

by OneHitKill on 09/05/2008 08:39:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No you putz (none / 0)
it's always been called climate change, global warming is a part of it and it's the name that stuck with the public and the media, if you would listen to scientists, they tend to use climate change

BTW you didn't reply to the redacting point
as usual

"climate change, you'll be roundly ridiculed"

coming from people who still think a socialist is a communist, that doesn't mean shit, my boy, it's not my fault you people still live in the past, I mean seriously when did you change "negro&quo t; for "Afrifan American", 2004?

by callisto on 09/05/2008 09:01:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm dealing with a mental midget. (none / 0)
So in your opinion, do you think the climate is "changing" for the better or the worse?

Let's see if you try to discuss the concepts of open and closed systems.

by KenTX on 09/05/2008 09:37:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's called little people nowadays :) (none / 0)
I would say for the worse and that's what everyone thinks except for rightwing lunatics who just love the idea of having sea lanes through the North Pole all year round

closed system are mostly used as a theoretical scenario, which at this point I'm inclining to think that in fact you are just a theory of an insane person, a computer model spewing it's vile across progressive websites :) one day you might become a real person, that's the day we're all in real trouble :)

by callisto on 09/05/2008 10:38:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not just the sealanes (none / 0)
Hitherto inaccessable mineral resources, specifically, diamond fields are becoming accessible with tundric thaw and glacial recession.

by perdido619 on 09/12/2008 11:27:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
True, problem is that tundric thaw might (none / 0)
doom this planet, all that CO2 that is going to be released

by callisto on 09/15/2008 12:58:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh Yeah - I agree 100% (none / 0)
Right - I didn't mean to say that this was a good thing. These aren't essential resources - diamonds aren't rare. I was just adding a little trivia nugget, not to say that there was an overlooked value. Individual wealth for anyone is last on the list of my priorities in this issue.

by perdido619 on 09/16/2008 06:38:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Easy (none / 0)

 

concepts of open and closed systems

 

Sarah and Bristol Palin; "open system(s)"

Hilary Clinton: "closed system"

 

next subject.

by MRFred on 09/05/2008 02:52:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0)
its a habit they have.

by MRFred on 09/05/2008 02:49:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
as of a couple weeks ago (none / 0)
I no longer trust anything quoted from the AP. They are officially in the tank for Karl Rove.

by hazmat on 09/05/2008 10:48:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
G-cubed (none / 0)
The most comprehensive and longest document-based time series of tropical cyclone activity for any area of the world is presented for the Atlantic and Caribbean region of the Lesser Antilles for the years 1690-2007. Newspaper accounts, ships' logbooks, meteorological journals, and other document sources were used to create this new data set, and a new methodology was applied for classifying historical tropical cyclone intensity. This compilation estimates the position and intensity of each tropical cyclone that passes through the 61.5°W meridian from the coast of South America northward through 25.0°N. The additional resources used here fills in gaps in the HURDAT record, which undercounts tropical storms and hurricanes by 28% (7%) in the years 1851-1898 (1899-1930) over populated islands from 12 to 18°N. The numbers of tropical cyclones show no trends that were significant at the 5% level. The time span 1968-1977 was probably the most inactive period since the islands were settled in the 1620s and 1630s.

GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS, VOL. 9, Q08013, doi:10.1029/2008GC002066, 2008

1968 to '77 was unusually inactive. We're not suffering an unusual increase in hurricanes; we're returning to normal.

by Twba on 09/26/2008 07:35:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
WIFI Flash To Ken (none / 0)

Keep on spinning ken..its what you do best. Edits, omissions and pure fabrication is the order of the day in conservative land:

What Ken says

global warming causes fewer hurricanes and weaker hurricanes.

What the experts really say ( same reference)

Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls ....that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer...Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase the study says... Knutson ( author) has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

They also say

"This study does not, in any way, undermine the widespread consensus in the scientific community about the reality of global warming. In fact, the wind shear changes are driven by global warming." 

 Lie and Spin

The planet has warmed one degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years, so the increase is a result of “global warming”.

Fact

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis : Goddard Institute for Space Science

Did you get that oh great engineer...surely you remember your basic stats.

You no more believe there is "global cooling" than fly to moon. You have made the mental calculation that suppressing or delaying the needed changes that must occur in our economy and society will benefit you in the short term, consequences be damned. You'll have the financial resources to survive, fuck everybody else.

So your tactic is to ridicule those who don't think it's Ok to be a profligate user of all of our natural resources to generate a little temporary profit.

Like most thing you post here is another exaggeration.

 But when the earth cooled one degree Fahrenheit in a single year in 2007-2008, the reason for the sudden, precipitous drop was “global dimming”.It’s comforting to know that no matter what happens, environmentalists always have an explanation: American Consumerism is to blame.

Thats not what the reference said...and you know it. Basically it refutes the entire thrust of you argument

Irresponsible consumerism is to blame. Just not here, world wide. The key is to consume and replace.

In my 40+ years of seagoing life I have seen drastic changes in our oceans and near shore waters, the growth of dead zones, decline of fisheries and watched with horror as Florida Bay changed from a fisherman's paradise to a hot, mostly dead pond.  When I'm 300 miles at sea and my intakes get clogged with plastic six pack holders...It occurs to me there might be a problem.

Its odd that same people who claim to believe in the "family" values of saving and financial  self sufficiency cant seem to apply the same standard to our natural resources.

You attitude proves unequivocally  that Republicans and Conservatives cant be trusted to be stewards of the natural resources of our country and preserving the environment.

Quick, one time profits will win every time.

by MRFred on 09/05/2008 11:38:18 AM EST

uh oh (none / 0)
  are

by MRFred on 09/05/2008 11:39:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Great comment MrFred (none / 0)
good that you still want to put some effort into that clown

so how big is the chance that he'll read the whole thing? 1 maybe 2% Or instead jump to another thread or just comment to a few words in your comment he picks up in a glance over it :)

the scary thing is that Kenny Texas makes bobo seem almost respectable :)

by callisto on 09/05/2008 12:13:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bermuda Triangle message in bottle (none / 0)
The next message will be flashed to you in code, by my brother-in-law, who was a radio operator 1963-1968. There are a couple of facts we can be certain of. 1. If every American started driving a Prius tomorrow, the net effect on man-made global CO2 generation would be insignificant. 2. Environmentalists are not in favor of more nuclear power plants. 3. Global cooling from diminished solar activity will render this entire discussion moot.

by KenTX on 09/05/2008 12:27:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
more straw men from ken (none / 0)
liberals advocate that everyone should drive a prius? When you want to have a discussion with someone other than the voices in your head, let us know.

by hazmat on 09/05/2008 01:03:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your making shit up again. (none / 1)

 There are a couple of facts we can be certain of

These are "facts" that aren't relevant to the argument..just pointless spin:

1. If every American started driving a Prius tomorrow, the net effect on man-made global CO2 generation would be insignificant.

A Prius, and especially the new plug in model reduces fuel consumption ( which does reduce carbon emissions) and dependency on petroleum based fuels are the number one reason people buy them, hence your ridicule.

2. Environmentalists are not in favor of more nuclear power plants.

Some are , some aren't. A fallacious line of argument that assumes nuclear power plants are the only solution. A meaningless statement.

3. Global cooling from diminished solar activity will render this entire discussion moot.

The global cooling you were referencing in the previous posts ( above) was in a discussion on aerosols in the atmosphere counterbalancing CO2 emissions heating effect, in another blog the "proof "  was due to orbital forcing or Milankovitch cycles. Now magically it's due to "diminished solar activity." Things are dimming alright...but its not the sun. At least in the next few thousand years anyway

 By the way,

The next message will be flashed to you in code, by my brother-in-law, who was a radio operator 1963-1968.

Morse code communication is still practiced by our Russian and Chinese friends, who know that if the balloon goes up,HF and LF Morse is the most reliable form of long haul communications and will be around long after our satellites , cell phones and terrestrial coms are piles of fused plastic.

You really shouldn't make fun of things you don't understand.

by MRFred on 09/05/2008 01:29:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Signaling USS Fred (none / 1)
 “A Prius, and especially the new plug in model reduces fuel consumption ( which does reduce carbon emissions) and dependency on petroleum based fuels are the number one reason people buy them, hence your ridicule.”

If every American was forced to drive a Prius tomorrow, the net effect on global man-made CO2 generation would be less than 4%.

“A fallacious line of argument that assumes nuclear power plants are the only solution. A meaningless statement.”

If every kilowatt of electricity consumed by Americans came from nuclear energy, the net effect on global man-made CO2 reduction could be greater than 12%.
Here’s a graphical presentation.
pie

“The global cooling you were referencing in the previous posts ( above) was in a discussion on aerosols in the atmosphere counterbalancing CO2 emissions heating effect, in another blog the "proof "  was due to orbital forcing or Milankovitch cycles. Now magically it's due to "diminished solar activity." Things are dimming alright...but its not the sun. At least in the next few thousand years anyway.”

by KenTX on 09/05/2008 09:34:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mixmaster Ken (none / 0)
you're mixing up discussions again

you never linked the Prius line to the nuclear power line, now you do, when you lost the debate

can we now have the stats comparing the Prius to other forms like solar, winds, wave, ...

so now you're mixing up sun cycles with the overal change over the lifespan of the sun

you're such a dishonest prick it's unbelievable

by callisto on 09/06/2008 07:23:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Spin and Facts (none / 0)
So you finally broke the code. Ken doesn't debate, he just restates the same argument in a different manner. He does this over and over until the blog slips away to the back burner, or until he gets his ass handed to him, generally the later.

If you look back you will not find one iotas bit of difference in the stuff he posted in 04 or now...he even uses the same graphs . It doesn't matter if there is any factual basis or not. He think's he's creating a "narrative" so a fixation on the Prius (that is marketed by the "free market" by the way, as a means to reduce fuel consumption ) is somehow morphed into a futile attempt to stop global warming. Why bother is the inference, you might as well buy a Hummer and be "cool" and ,not inconsequentially, line big oils and Kens pockets.

I just answer to post a counterpoint...and thats even getting tiresome.

What he's actually creating is a laugh track for a remake of Sanford and Sons. Hauling out the same junk in each episode.

by MRFred on 09/06/2008 10:28:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I fully understand your frustration. (none / 1)
I keep presenting the same arguments, and you have absolutely no response.

Liberals want to control people’s lives and force “equality”. This entire Global Warming Hoax is about liberals obtaining control of the economy. They want to tell me what car to drive, and how much of my money I can keep, and whether I can own a gun, and who my doctor will be, and what I can do with my land, and who I can rent my house to.

Liberals don’t want economic inequality. They want people punished for making a lot of money and driving monster SUVs.

Listen up Fred. The point of this exchange is to demonstrate that forcing every American to drive a hybrid will have a negligible impact on the total volume of global man made CO2. Once that fact is established, then YOU GOT NUTHIN’!!! You might as well shut up about global warming forevermore.

Converting the entire electrical grid to nuclear energy like they’ve done in France and Japan would have a much more significant impact on CO2 generation, but liberals aren’t interested in this subject. They just want to talk about cars. They just want to control people lives.

T Boone Pickens is promoting conversion of automobiles to CNG (compressed natural gas). I’m somewhat in favor of this proposal because it makes us energy independent, but it doesn’t reduce CO2 generation. I knew Boone had a trick up his sleeve with his energy plan, and sure enough, Mesa Gas will make billions off the deal.

by KenTX on 09/06/2008 11:19:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You proove your insanity over and over again (none / 0)
"I keep presenting the same arguments, and you have absolutely no response."

no, you F-tard, you keep being debunked everytime, over and over again, you win almost none of the debates, you just move along to another comment train or post

I really think Kenny Texas might be clinically insane

"The point of this exchange is to demonstrate that forcing every American to drive a hybrid"

nobody says that, except the voices in your head

"Converting the entire electrical grid to nuclear energy"

I think you mean converting the entire electrical production to nuclear energy or are you saying that the grid will be transporting nuclear energy instead of electricity? :)

Kenny stop listening to the voices in your head man, it's sheer insanity insane

by callisto on 09/06/2008 12:09:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Callisto is the prototypical liberal. (none / 1)
He wants to complain about the problems of the world, yet he has ZERO solutions. He yammers on like a magpie, but contributes nothing to the discussion.

by KenTX on 09/06/2008 12:23:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again changing topics (none / 0)
keep changing lanes man, people are on to you

everytime you get caught, you flee away

see you in another thread? c u soon

BTW that statement is totally wrong, but hey again changing topics as usual

sad sad Kenny

btw how do you lies contribute any discussion?

by callisto on 09/06/2008 12:26:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you get on the topic (none / 1)
The subject is energy and global warming. What do you have to contribute? NOTHING!!! As always, you have nothing to say on the subject, because you're a pea brain liberal.

by KenTX on 09/06/2008 12:52:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've said so in other threads (none / 0)
I have no need to keep repeating the same things over and over again to a hick from Texas


BTW this was about you posting lies in this thread, this has nothing to do with me, you keep posting false claims all over this site


and I applaud your perseverance in trying to keep changing topics

I wonder, how is it to stand all alone, it seems even bobo has given up covering your ass, you're just one of those crazy men in the street shouting about the end of days

by callisto on 09/06/2008 01:10:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)
Ken, could you please stop using "liberal" as if it has a dirty and derogatory connotation.

by tiggerporn on 09/06/2008 03:30:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tsk Tsk... (none / 0)

I must caution you against the fucktard moniker. One of our dear departed troll friends used it with great abandon, among other things, until he got canned.

Ther are plenty of epithats you can use...good old "dumb ass" is just fine. It can be used

In a friendly manner: You dumb ass, ha ha

Or sternly: Dumb ass.

by MRFred on 09/07/2008 09:05:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I know (none / 0)
mind you, I didn't start with that, it's just after calling him dumb, his ideas kept getting more nuttier and more dishonest

especially since you and ProfRich and some others go to great lengths to post indepth comments and then he states that no one responds to him

look at this example, you write long comments and he accuses you of not responding to him

I'm seriously starting to think that he is clinically insane

by callisto on 09/07/2008 09:26:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh please (none / 0)
I keep presenting the same arguments, and you have absolutely no response.


That is simply not true.. I respond,and refute your arguments and you simply ignore my responses.

Show me one example where I claimed that that "forcing" every American to drive a hybrid will  impact on the total volume of global man made CO2. You are the one clinging to that hapless and hopeless red herring to spin to the "liberals want to control our lives" bullshit. Almost all Liberals, moderates and I suspect conservatives, don't give a flying fuck how you live your self indulgent little life a second thought.

For the record I never did. I repeated over and over the point of hybrid vehicles is to reduce fuel consumption. if you reduce fuel consumption, it stands to reason you reduce emissions of all kinds and you reduce the need to import foreign oil to make the fuel.

Liberals want to control people's lives and force "equality". This entire Global Warming Hoax is about liberals obtaining control of the economy. They want to tell me what car to drive, and how much of my money I can keep, and whether I can own a gun, and who my doctor will be, and what I can do with my land, and who I can rent my house to.

More lies, or paranoia , I'm sure some people that could be classified as liberals (and Christian conservatives certainly) do. However  the vast majority of Americans don't give a rats ass what you do as long as your "freedom" to be a self centered jerk doesn't impact them in a way that restricts their "freedom", kill, injure or otherwise endanger their family.

  • If you want to own a gun, fine, blow your silly brains out for all I care. Just don't expect to carry your gun into a college where my grandchildren are attending school..in that case there's gonna be a fight.

  • If you want to be a racist prick that's your prerogative. If you want to discriminate against minorities that have the rent and the credit and references to rent your house, fine. Discriminate away, nothings stopping you. The potential renters might get pissed..thats their prerogative too in case you haven't noticed. Sorry, sucks to be you.

  • If you want to drive a Hummer, nothings stopping you. If you want to go to those private roads your so hot about and run around like some irresponsible redneck retard on a meth binge feel free. Regardless of what happens you'll still be able to do that..until the gas runs out...and you know it.

  • If you want to build a toxic waste dump on your land..go for it. Don't be surprised when the neighbors get pissed. They have rights too.

  • No one give a shit what doctor you go to. Whatever health plan comes to pass if you have the cash you'll can go to any doctor you want. Thats no different than what you blabber about now.

  • If you want to run your chemical plant so it spews all kinds of dangerous crap into the air and save a few bucks for your bonus...go for it. Be forewarned, don't expect me to sit around and breath your pollution with out a fight just because you are a cheap insensitive asshole.

If I attempt to meet you half way you start with some "I kicked your ass bluster" I can only conclude that your not interested in discussion, period. When you are , let me know.

One last thing... a larger commercial nuclear power presence will never work in the US because the industry spends more time attempting to circumvent safety regulations on existing plants rather than building and generating power in new ones.

You want nuclear power..fine...we'll use the French model. First we will nationalize all the existing nuclear power plants then build reactors until we generate about 75% of our power by nuclear. Then we make the nuclear electric grid a semi-autonomous company  under government control. Just like France. I'm sure the conservatives will love that. Until attitudes change on your side of the equation thats the only way we will be able to expand our nuclear generation  capability without killing ourselves. Particularly when Republicans "reduce regulation" and some stupid bastard attempts to " be more competitive" by substituting cheap bolts or piping from China in a main coolant loop to save a few bucks on the back end.

by MRFred on 09/06/2008 02:58:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
right arm Fred! (none / 0)

by desertpear on 09/06/2008 04:20:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll meet you halfway. (none / 0)
Compressed natural gas in cars. Liquified coal in cars. Government oversight nuclear plants. Windfarms on the Kennedy compound. Wind simply doesn't work. A turbine for my house costs $50,000, and it would provide enough power 20 percent of the time. It wouldn't pay for itself in 10 lifetimes.

by KenTX on 09/06/2008 09:27:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where are you buying that turbine? (none / 0)
How come they can put up personal turbines for a fraction of that in Europe and provide electricity 95% of the time?

I have seen houses that combine wind, solar, ... that actually produce more than they consume, they actually sell the eletricity

your turbine seems expensive and crappy at the same time

I wish Wes would debate you on wind, that's something most people here would love to see

hey, you're story might be true or it might just be a bold lie, but other people seem to make it work and get their money out of it in 5-10 years

by callisto on 09/06/2008 09:50:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If I lived on the coast (none / 0)
It would work 95% of the time. It works on plains, coasts, mountain passes, but certainly not everywhere. $50,000 includes turbine, blades, pole, wiring and connections, maintenance.

by KenTX on 09/07/2008 12:15:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So it does work (none / 0)
of course on the location issue, which made your point a little misleading, because if depends on the location, not on the technology

$50.000 is still a lot, saw a lady in English farm country do it for 1/3 of that

by callisto on 09/07/2008 07:50:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
wind (none / 0)
I agree it has problems, but that seems a crazy estimate for a home turbine.  It seems to work for some people.

by desertpear on 09/06/2008 10:38:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have no problem (none / 0)

with any of those ideas. Never have. If Mesa Gas makes billions for a plan that works at resonable proces to the consumer...no problem.

Wind works fine...you just don't live in the right place. That just reinforces the idea that no on solution is a silver bullet. You need a class 3 wind rating or better to reliably generate power. And as we all know you have no "class " so wind isn't a solution for you. Eventually, things will reach a point where the economics will be outweighed by the choice between no power or nuclear,wind and solar.

Solar power is a province of the desert South West .  I foresee nuclear in the east, solar California and the Southwest. Wind in the "wind corridor" through the heartland. A new "digital" low loss transmission grid to tie it all together.

Coal gasification/fuels? Sure...with carbon sequestration no worries.   From what we get in new offshore drilling in existing unused leases, new leases with the correct safeguards, no problem.

Methane gas hydrides ( did I say that right?) have great potential..assuming we figure out how to use them.

Nuclear. Conservatives can whine about big government all they want however, the Navy has to only accident free Nuclear program in the world.

I could see a program where the power companies build the plants as a consortium under NRC control. The operators are staffed by Navy trained operators who are accessed through a service for college program of some type. That would generate a cadre of trained operators, provide the oversight and a relatively low risk profit, albeit a smaller profit but at least the power company wouldn't  be SOL in the deal.

I am open to a lot of things...just screaming unrestricted oil, oil, oil all the time and painting those who support alternatives as "kooks" wont solve the problem.


 

 

by MRFred on 09/07/2008 09:00:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Solar (none / 0)
the use of solar isn't limited to only the most sunny places, the less sunny places might not be able to use it 100% of the time, but since you're still connected to the electrical grid, it doesn't matter

in fact I've seen examples in Germany where neighbourhoods are buying solar panels and at the end of the year produce more power from solar than they consume and sell the excess energy to the electrical companies

they're putting up solar panels in UK, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, ... not really places known to have the best weather. UK & BE we're talking 200+ days of rain a year

by callisto on 09/07/2008 09:31:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well sure... (none / 0)
you can augment power in those areas. The SW has the density to make a net surplus

by MRFred on 09/07/2008 10:06:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
great stuff (none / 0)

People need to rethink the whole one-solution, centralized energy idea.  We should look at smaller-scale, regional solutions. 

I lived in a yurt for a year in northern California.  It was off the grid and was powered by a combination of solar and micro-hydro.  During the winter, extraction of a small amount of water from a tiny ephemeral stream provided most of the energy, and solar provided all energy during the portion of the year when the stream was naturally dry.  We had more power than we needed, even with computers, stereos, and other electrical amenities.  We could have covered the place with Christmas lights. We also had an awesome container garden of tomatoes, eggplants, and chili peppers using only gray water. 

by desertpear on 09/12/2008 03:57:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You must be some kind of (none / 0)
kook...:0

by MRFred on 09/12/2008 09:57:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
YOU sir are really an idiot (none / 0)
1. stats please + there are other solutions, I hear public transport helps a great deal
2. not every environmentalist thinks the same way, like every redneck doesn't think the same way, some want to burn the negros, other's are in favor of lynches (put in those terms, you get it now?)
3. solar activity diminishes over a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOONG time, so when it comes into play, we'll be probably extinct as a species

by callisto on 09/06/2008 07:12:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
climate change (none / 0)

I sort of hate arguing the whole climate change thing on a political forum, because there are a lot of questions still about what is happening and what factors are influencing change.  I work with some amazing geologists that study long-term climate change.  But in some sense, the whole man-made vs natural argument is moot.  Climate is changing at a rate that could bring serious challenges to all countries, whether or not it is anthropogenic in origin.  Most agree on that point.  Whether or not it is man-made does not affect the argument that we might be able to reduce the speed of change by reducing emissions or mitigate potential negative impacts of the changes.  This may be necessary to protect basic ecosystem services that humans rely on for clean air and water, growing food, etc.

Another little thing I would like to bring up.  Eliminating most meat from your diet will do more to reduce your impact on climate than buying an energy-efficient vehicle. 

There are many things we can do to reduce our emissions that hardly take any effort at all, and it requires no delay to be effective, nor any new drilling or nuclear power plants.  We MUST conserve first, because it is the low-hanging fruit of this whole issue.

"Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation."
 

by desertpear on 09/06/2008 04:33:36 PM EST

latest (none / 0)
On relation between climate change and hurricanes/tropical storms is in the NYT.   I would caution progressives to be careful when making claims about climate change because the science is very young and changing all the time.  If we make mistakes, conservatives will use that against us and we will be "crying wolf."  A good place to look for information is www.sciencedaily.com.

by desertpear on 09/06/2008 05:18:15 PM EST

Next stop, Houston... (none / 0)
Ike is the biggest...physically in recent memory...

by MRFred on 09/12/2008 03:19:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This thing is a monster (none / 0)

Do we know if Ken and his wife are OK?

My family is all safe and sound, FYI.

by ProfRich on 09/12/2008 10:58:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But ,There Is No Global Warming! | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: