Sun made global warming???

[drmatsci]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...the word 'clearly' in context of what you gather from a post has proven to be a dubious exercise on numerous occaisons.




You even quoted it and STILL can't read.

I CAN read just fine, thank you.
I just haven't read anything intelligent from you worth noting as of late...

Do I post anytime you start a thread about how global warming is a joke, a farce or stupid? Dam right, someone has to keep you in check and present some opposition to your extreme views.

The sun can influence our climate? How clever of you...

But that's no argument that we are not also changing our climate and you still have yet to present anything to refute what I read from NOAA and other scientific orginizations.

AND yes, you certainly do tend to associate anyone who believes in made made global warming as a nut and extreme. Well, call most american's crazy then - as many as 85% believe and 60% percieve it as a threat, including both presedential candidates.

I guess that makes you one of the few sane. Or - maybe you are the crazy one?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by drmatsci

I CAN read just fine, thank you.
I just haven't read anything intelligent from you worth noting as of late...

...yet, here we are.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by drmatsci

I CAN read just fine, thank you.
I just haven't read anything intelligent from you worth noting as of late...

Do I post anytime you start a thread about how global warming is a joke, a farce or stupid? Dam right, someone has to keep you in check and present some opposition to your extreme views.

The sun can influence our climate? How clever of you...

But that's no argument that we are not also changing our climate and you still have yet to present anything to refute what I read from NOAA and other scientific orginizations.

AND yes, you certainly do tend to associate anyone who believes in made made global warming as a nut and extreme. Well, call most american's crazy then - as many as 85% believe and 60% percieve it as a threat, including both presedential candidates.

I guess that makes you one of the few sane. Or - maybe you are the crazy one?

...you are, on the edge of getting it, yet, somehow, you just can't or won't differentiate between the cult of man made global warming and global warming itself.

Reading comprehension notwithstanding, let's go with your, the, as you put it, majority view as FACT;

If man made global warming is a real, serious and fixable in time threat to our happy existence, what should we do?

Now, remember, the solutions you may propose will have real consequences, so, if your solutions require us to go to war to enforce restrictions or let some populations die or just flat out kill 'em, just be prepared to defend that course of action, OK?

Ready? Go!

[drmatsci]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...you are, on the edge of getting it, yet, somehow, you just can't or won't differentiate between the cult of man made global warming and global warming itself.

Reading comprehension notwithstanding, let's go with your, the, as you put it, majority view as FACT;

If man made global warming is a real, serious and fixable in time threat to our happy existence, what should we do?

Now, remember, the solutions you may propose will have real consequences, so, if your solutions require us to go to war to enforce restrictions or let some populations die or just flat out kill 'em, just be prepared to defend that course of action, OK?

Ready? Go!

You continue to clean up as regular part of progress and you study the potential problem - you are correct, we can't do anything about what the earth was already going to do, but why the hell would you want to screw with it beyond that point?

How is more nuclear plants going to lead us to war? EV's? nope. Actually, changing our economy from oil and coal to renewables, as we can, would strengthen our economy as more money would stay here. Yes, we could do that with our own oil and coal, but you do know, oil and coal spew other gasses that are classified by the EPA as toxic?

Tell me how more solar, nuclear, hydro, wind and others TBD will lead us to war? you are fear-mongering, plain and simple. How will EV's using new, non 'chemical' batteries leed to war? Where is all your war fears and economy woe fears coming from?

[drmatsci]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

... or let some populations die or just flat out kill 'em, just be prepared to defend that course of action, OK?

Ready? Go!

Newsflash - huge portions of population in Africa ARE dieing or being killed off and WE ARE NOT doing anything... why? No oil there, so the USA don't care! I would propose the opposite theory - as we immerge from our oil 'hangover' the USA might find itself able to care and help the people of this planet based on need instead of oil location.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by drmatsci

You continue to clean up as regular part of progress and you study the potential problem - you are correct, we can't do anything about what the earth was already going to do, but why the hell would you want to screw with it beyond that point?

How is more nuclear plants going to lead us to war? EV's? nope. Actually, changing our economy from oil and goal to renewables, as we can, would strengthen our economy as more money would stay here. Yes, we could do that with our own oil and coal, but you do know, oil and coal spew other gasses that are classified by the EPA as toxic?

Tell me how more solar, nuclear, hydro, wind and others TBD will lead us to war? you are fear-mongering, plain and simple. How will EV's using new, non 'chemical' batteries leed to war? Where is all your war fears and economy woe fears coming from?

...we go to alternatives, oil and coal will become cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. That means MILLIONS of more cars around the globe as economies that simply can not afford nukes and solar and wind and hi end technologies will, naturally, use what makes sense.

This will also be the case as other nations and peoples add power plants and heat things and develop industries.

If you have a reasonable knowledge of human history, you'll notice a pattern of war being fought over wealth, resources and spheres of influence and power over the wealth and the resources.

If we are going to stand by and accept paying the equivalent of $4 a gallon gas and $150 a barrel oil to employ alternatives, we will not only be competing with nations that have fractional labor costs compared to us, but also energy costs a sixth or less than our own. It has been hard enough to absorb the labor disparity. Add energy to that and you should readily be able to see catastrophic US job loss.

You speak of accepting the massive artificial inflation of energy costs as a mere choice of long term good over short term discomfort. Well, add to that the massive artificial inflation in food and consumer goods coupled with less and less jobs. We're talking a collapse in exports and becoming, like Great Britain, a nation near totally dependent on imports. They are so because they are small. We would become so out of political choice. You're building a neighborhood that few will be able to afford to live in.

Now, the natural response to these sorts of threats over the years has been war. If we avoid war. We die. Or, at minimum, we are at the mercy of the nations of the world in a reverse of poverty much like a rich man who can not do anything for himself but shuffle paper; he pays others for everything and to do everything.

Now, your response will be, naturally, that we will be world leaders and everyone else will buy our great products. That is, of course, absurd.

Is India going to buy a $50,000 wonder car from us or a $5,000 internal combustion machine that also costs a fraction to operate?

Will anyone else put up nuke plants or carbon plants costing fractions to operate?

Oil has dropped nearly $40 a barrel because of slight demand decrease. If we, using of 25% of the daily global output, stop, oil will be under $25 a barrel, if that. And the carbon economy will EXPLODE around the world as
simple economics take hold.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by drmatsci

Newsflash - huge portions of population in Africa ARE dieing or being killed off and WE ARE NOT doing anything... why? No oil there, so the USA don't care! I would propose the opposite theory - as we immerge from our oil 'hangover' the USA might find itself able to care and help the people of this planet based on need instead of oil location.

...would be the wrong conclusion. There is plenty of oil in Africa. They can't afford to consume it. Were the able to, when it gets cheap enough, history has already taught us that boats can get to Africa just fine. That means tankers can, too.

[drmatsci]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...we go to alternatives, oil and coal will become cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. That means MILLIONS of more cars around the globe as economies that simply can not afford nukes and solar and wind and hi end technologies will, naturally, use what makes sense.

This will also be the case as other nations and peoples add power plants and heat things and develop industries.

If you have a reasonable knowledge of human history, you'll notice a pattern of war being fought over wealth, resources and spheres of influence and power over the wealth and the resources.

If we are going to stand by and accept paying the equivalent of $4 a gallon gas and $150 a barrel oil to employ alternatives, we will not only be competing with nations that have fractional labor costs compared to us, but also energy costs a sixth or less than our own. It has been hard enough to absorb the labor disparity. Add energy to that and you should readily be able to see catastrophic US job loss.

You speak of accepting the massive artificial inflation of energy costs as a mere choice of long term good over short term discomfort. Well, add to that the massive artificial inflation in food and consumer goods coupled with less and less jobs. We're talking a collapse in exports and becoming, like Great Britain, a nation near totally dependent on imports. They are so because they are small. We would become so out of political choice. You're building a neighborhood that few will be able to afford to live in.

Now, the natural response to these sorts of threats over the years has been war. If we avoid war. We die. Or, at minimum, we are at the mercy of the nations of the world in a reverse of poverty much like a rich man who can not do anything for himself but shuffle paper; he pays others for everything and to do everything.

Now, your response will be, naturally, that we will be world leaders and everyone else will buy our great products. That is, of course, absurd.

Is India going to buy a $50,000 wonder car from us or a $5,000 internal combustion machine that also costs a fraction to operate?

Will anyone else put up nuke plants or carbon plants costing fractions to operate?

Oil has dropped nearly $40 a barrel because of slight demand decrease. If we, using of 25% of the daily global output, stop, oil will be under $25 a barrel, if that. And the carbon economy will EXPLODE around the world as
simple economics take hold.

I assume you don't believe in 'Peak Oil' then? Or that production of oil will also get more and more expnsive? Again, fear mongering - EV's will not be 50,000 and the fact that china and india may initially use more oil isn't an excuse for us not to do the right thing. China and Inida alone within 20 years will use far more oil then we could dream to use here and by then what we use or don't use will be trivial - oil will be expensive - and harder to get - and we could be near oil free or still buying expensive gas. As mass production begins the smallest EV's will be on par with the small car prices of today, so don't tell me i am building a neigborhood only for the rich. Even the chevy volt, which is obtusely expensive, won't be 50,000. Where is this massive inflation going to come from? A large part of infaltion has been FROM OIL. So being free of it would stableize things, not make them worse.

Sorry, but I don't buy your arguments, sadly, too many conservatives do. Its fear mongering. And politics from rich folk that don't want their hummer to be taken away...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by drmatsci

I assume you don't believe in 'Peak Oil' then? Or that production of oil will also get more and more expnsive? Again, fear mongering - EV's will not be 50,000 and the fact that china and india may initially use more oil isn't an excuse for us not to do the right thing. China and Inida alone within 20 years will use far more oil then we could dream to use here and by then what we use or don't use will be trivial - oil will be expensive - and harder to get - and we could be near oil free or still buying expensive gas. As mass production begins the smallest EV's will be on par with the small car prices of today, so don't tell me i am building a neigborhood only for the rich. Even the chevy volt, which is obtusely expensive, won't be 50,000. Where is this massive inflation going to come from? A large part of infaltion has been FROM OIL. So being free of it would stableize things, not make them worse.

Sorry, but I don't buy your arguments, sadly, too many conservatives do. Its fear mongering. And politics from rich folk that don't want their hummer to be taken away...

...oil is about the same as 'flat earth' minus the boat eating dragons. Peak oil assumes some thins that aren't true;

1. All the oil was made a long time ago and there is only so much.
2. There isn't all that much.
3. It's not being made any more.
4. There isn't much oil, yet, somehow, the richest corporations in the history of the planet are firmly rooted in long term, long time oil production.

If Peak Oil is true, oil companies are the equivalent of the man who expands his buggy whip output to meet Model T production.

However, peak oil, if true, which it's not, will be the BEST argument for your ideas and will be the motivating force behind going to alternatives because they become the better option, not the feel good option.

I think it is a hoot you calling me a fear mongering, or my position, when it's your argument that is expressly based in and on fear!

The ONLY way you're little Chevy Volt world prevails is if it is cheaper than internal combustion, be it $50,000 vs. $5,000 or $25,000 vs. $10,000. Even if state of the art EV vehicles beat out what we have now, which it CAN'T, the generation argument is next in line. So, while we're merrily wrecking our economy, the rest of the world will, as you point out, be belching far more carbon waste than your worst nightmare.

Now, if we burn up oil, now we're getting somewhere. We CAN change to alternatives, but it's going to have to be incremental and it's gonna take decades, perhaps 50 years and it's gonna have NOTHING to do with the environment. This is economics 101.

Not much I can do with you if you reject simple economics.

[Solja_Boy]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Well, at least one thing is still true; WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Not me. I have a panic room in my house.