Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Schwarzenegger on alternative energy
- This topic has 31 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by bnw.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 21, 2016 at 12:43 pm #61429ZooeyModerator
And he doesn’t even mention oil wars.
December 21, 2016 at 12:50 pm #61432AgamemnonParticipantI don’t know why he chooses to lump all that together. I only have problems with the climate change hoax.
Even calling it climate change is a misleading rebranding. It is the idea that man made CO2 causes any significant change, that I think is wrong.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Agamemnon.
December 21, 2016 at 1:28 pm #61438wvParticipant<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I don’t know why he chooses to lump all that together. I only have problems with the climate change hoax.</span>
<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>Even calling it climate change is a misleading rebranding. It is the idea that man made CO2 causes any significant change, that I think is wrong.</span>
————–
Ag, so, you think all those scientists in all those different fields, in all those countries, are wrong about humans contributing to climate change?w
vDecember 21, 2016 at 3:53 pm #61447AgamemnonParticipantAg, so, you think all those scientists in all those different fields, in all those countries, are wrong about humans contributing to climate change?
w
vYes. I think they use bad arguments and every time I learn more, I am more convinced.
If you think otherwise, it won’t bother me. Everybody can come to their own conclusion.
December 21, 2016 at 4:56 pm #61455bnwBlockedHe doesn’t fool me. His alternative energy was steroids.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 21, 2016 at 9:01 pm #61466CalParticipantYes. I think they use bad arguments and every time I learn more, I am more convinced.
If you think otherwise, it won’t bother me. Everybody can come to their own conclusion.I’m curious. Can you explain a little?
How about starting here? Do you believe the earth is warming?
December 21, 2016 at 9:29 pm #61469bnwBlockedHow about starting here? Do you believe the earth is warming?
That isn’t the issue. The issue is whether manmade CO2 causes warming.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 21, 2016 at 10:13 pm #61470AgamemnonParticipantI’m curious. Can you explain a little?
How about starting here? Do you believe the earth is warming?
In the long term we are headed for a cooling. In the short term it is hard to say exactly when that will happen or if we will have some positive or negative variance before that happens. A few hundred years ago it was warmer, then we had the little ice age, then that ended. But this has nothing to do with hypothetical man made CO2 warming. imo
December 21, 2016 at 11:46 pm #61474waterfieldParticipantThe “it was warmer millions of years ago” is a myth.
December 22, 2016 at 12:43 am #61475bnwBlockedThe “it was warmer millions of years ago” is a myth.
No it isn’t. Earth has been cooling for at least 65 million years.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 22, 2016 at 4:41 am #61479AgamemnonParticipantThe “it was warmer millions of years ago” is a myth.
I am sorry, but Le Page is not a good example of anything. imo
December 22, 2016 at 4:42 am #61480znModeratorI’ve seen enough for this to be my vote, and it always will be my vote.
The overwhelming majority of scientists from all over the world, and from a wide array of fields, have arrived at the consensus view that climate change is real and human caused.
The USA is the only advanced country in the world where there is a notable percentage of people who deny this.
But then the USA is the only advanced country in the world where large corporate interests dominate what counts as news.
…
December 22, 2016 at 4:52 am #61482AgamemnonParticipantDecember 22, 2016 at 4:57 am #61483znModeratorVoting proves theory?
No, voting states positions.
Turns the issue into an informal poll.
So just stating a position.
December 22, 2016 at 5:04 am #61484AgamemnonParticipantVoting proves theory?
No, voting states positions.
Turns the issue into an informal poll.
So just stating a position.
Ok, I misread that. Everyone gets to have a position. There are a lot of smart people here, that doesn’t mean we all have to agree. imo
- This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Agamemnon.
December 22, 2016 at 8:15 am #61488CalParticipantI am still curious and still would like you to talk about the bad arguments that you hear Ag.
I had assumed that most people who knew something about global warming and weren’t employed by Exxon accepted global warming. It’s a very intuitive or maybe common sense theory. If you put tons of carbon particles in the air, there will be some type of impact. That’s Newton’s first law: for every action there’s an equal but opposite reaction.
I know though from my limited exposure to science that the world doesn’t always operate by rules that are intuitive. Light acts as both a particle and wave, a large percentage of the mass of the universe is made of material that we can’t see. So I am genuinely intrigued when you say that people are making bad arguments about this issue. I am constantly surprised by how many bad arguments I hear from professionals and “experts”.
And I am willing to listen and do a little reading because global warming isn’t issue that I’ve really examined before.
Can we start here? Do you believe NOAA when they say that 2016 is the warmest year ever recorded? Do you believe scientists who say that the ice caps are melting because of the warming?
December 22, 2016 at 8:17 am #61489wvParticipantVoting proves theory?
No, voting states positions.
Turns the issue into an informal poll.
So just stating a position.
<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>Ok, I misread that. Everyone gets to have a position. There are a lot of smart people here, that doesn’t mean we all have to agree. imo</span>
—————-
Well, i agree, we dont have to agree.
And i dont know science. Or algebra. So since i dunno-stuff, i have to rely on scientific-consensus. And when the vast majority of scientists in all those different fields, with all those different political stripes, in all those different nations, come to the same conclusion — i gotta go with their view.
Plus, i agree with the Terminator that even if the consensus-climate-change-view was wrong, there are other reasons to change our ways. Such as pollution, toxic-sludge, etc, etc.
Would you say Humans are destroying the biosphere, Ag?
w
vDecember 22, 2016 at 8:28 am #61491AgamemnonParticipantWould you say Humans are destroying the biosphere, Ag?
w
vI think we are destroying fresh water and burning down the rain forest and using nonrenewable resources and polluting with waste products. I think industrial farming and food corporations are bad things. A lot of stuff is bad. In the past we could always find more stuff at other places. If we don’t eventually move off planet we will run out of stuff and die. So, we need to find a lot more energy. So, good water short term. Vast amounts of energy long term.
December 22, 2016 at 8:31 am #61492bnwBlockedI’ve seen enough for this to be my vote, and it always will be my vote.
The overwhelming majority of scientists from all over the world, and from a wide array of fields, have arrived at the consensus view that climate change is real and human caused.
The USA is the only advanced country in the world where there is a notable percentage of people who deny this.
But then the USA is the only advanced country in the world where large corporate interests dominate what counts as news.
…
And yet it remains a theory. Only a theory. Its proponents have failed miserably in applying it to predict future effects over the last 20 years. Once the government stops supporting the nonsense with bags of cash watch how fast your so called scientific consensus evaporates. I am proud that my field of science has not been suckered nor seduced by the government/MSM campaign of manmade global warming. Unlike all other areas of science we know the earth’s past since it is either what we do or essential to what we do. Yet when the proponents of manmade global warming assemble their grand multi-disciplinary scientific panels at their well publicized conferences only one field of science is not invited. All the various scientific disciplines present under the broad umbrella of geology are never invited. I suspect those days too are fast coming to an end with the Trump administration and a true comprehensive scientific approach towards assessing the theory of manmade CO2 causing global warming will ensue.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 22, 2016 at 8:53 am #61496wvParticipantWould you say Humans are destroying the biosphere, Ag?
w
v<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I think we are destroying fresh water and burning down the rain forest and using nonrenewable resources and polluting with waste products. I think industrial farming and food corporations are bad things. A lot of stuff is bad. In the past we could always find more stuff at other places. If we don’t eventually move off planet we will run out of stuff and die. So, we need to find a lot more energy. So, good water short term. Vast amounts of energy long term.</span>
————–
OK, well we agree on the big-picture then.Btw, some Murmansk news, in case you feel like moving north:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/22/murmansks-silver-lining-arctic-city-banks-on-ice-melt-for-its-renaissance
w
vDecember 22, 2016 at 8:57 am #61499wvParticipantOnce the government stops supporting the nonsense with bags of cash watch how fast your so called scientific consensus evaporates
———
Except its not ‘the government’ that supports the climate-change-consensus. Its lots and lots and lots of different kinds of governments and organizations all over the world. Japan, Cuba, Norway, France, etc, etc.If it were just the USA that was pushing this, it would be one thing — but its not.
w
vDecember 22, 2016 at 9:40 am #61501nittany ramModeratorOnce the government stops supporting the nonsense with bags of cash watch how fast your so called scientific consensus evaporates
———
Except its not ‘the government’ that supports the climate-change-consensus. Its lots and lots and lots of different kinds of governments and organizations all over the world. Japan, Cuba, Norway, France, etc, etc.If it were just the USA that was pushing this, it would be one thing — but its not.
w
vAnd it’s not even scientists in the USA that are pushing this…they agree that anthropomorphic climate change is happening. It’s not even being debated anymore. They’ve moved way beyond that.
We are supposed to believe climate change isn’t real for one reason and one reason only: because conservative politicians say so.
December 22, 2016 at 9:50 am #61503wvParticipantAnd it’s not even scientists in the USA that are pushing this…they agree that anthropomorphic climate change is happening. It’s not even being debated anymore. They’ve moved way beyond that.
——————
Well what finally persuaded me (cause i am always skeptical of gov-ment and official sources) was the fact that so many and diverse organizations world-wide
adopted the consensus-view. I mean, when Marxist-Cubans and US-corporatists, and French organizations and Scandanavian organizations and Japanese organizations and all kinds of groups that have NOTHING in common other than science, all agree — then i have to listen.But then as Arnold sez, it dont even matter — cause there’s other reasons to change our ways. Pollution being the main reason.
w
vDecember 22, 2016 at 10:56 am #61513znModeratorI had assumed that most people who knew something about global warming and weren’t employed by Exxon accepted global warming.
No–among educated advanced first-world nations the USA has the highest percentage of deniers.
It’s a direct effect of the money being spent to try and foster doubt.
It works in the USA, nowhere else.
December 22, 2016 at 11:02 am #61514znModeratorExcept its not ‘the government’ that supports the climate-change-consensus. Its lots and lots and lots of different kinds of governments and organizations all over the world. Japan, Cuba, Norway, France, etc, etc.
If it were just the USA that was pushing this, it would be one thing — but its not.
w
vAs a child of 2 scientists, I have often had this conversation. Someone says, no there’s no global scientific consensus on climate change, that’s a conspiracy. And I say, do you know any scientists? It’s hard to get 2 scientists to agree on where to have lunch. Let alone get thousands upon thousands of them in different countries all over the globe and in different fields to agree to a lie when agreeing to a lie like that goes against the core inner principles that make them scientists in the first place.
It’s not one country. It’s not one field. It’s not one scientific organization. These are people whose very training includes the fact that they get individually rewarded for resisting theories they don’t believe in, and yet there is consensus.
Only people with ties to corporate interests deny this stuff. And even then their own corporations undermined them by accounting for climate change in their own fiscal decision making….which they did do, while also funding the deniers.
….
December 22, 2016 at 11:20 am #61515bnwBlockedOnce the government stops supporting the nonsense with bags of cash watch how fast your so called scientific consensus evaporates
———
Except its not ‘the government’ that supports the climate-change-consensus. Its lots and lots and lots of different kinds of governments and organizations all over the world. Japan, Cuba, Norway, France, etc, etc.If it were just the USA that was pushing this, it would be one thing — but its not.
w
vNo you’re wrong. It is governments around the world that support the manmade CO2 caused global warming in order to reap huge tax revenues from all people. You of all people should be able to see how crass the scam really is.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 22, 2016 at 11:22 am #61516bnwBlockedAnd it’s not even scientists in the USA that are pushing this…they agree that anthropomorphic climate change is happening. It’s not even being debated anymore. They’ve moved way beyond that.
——————
Well what finally persuaded me (cause i am always skeptical of gov-ment and official sources) was the fact that so many and diverse organizations world-wide
adopted the consensus-view. I mean, when Marxist-Cubans and US-corporatists, and French organizations and Scandanavian organizations and Japanese organizations and all kinds of groups that have NOTHING in common other than science, all agree — then i have to listen.But then as Arnold sez, it dont even matter — cause there’s other reasons to change our ways. Pollution being the main reason.
w
vYes they all agree they want more money. Theres the consensus.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 25, 2016 at 11:48 pm #61799AgamemnonParticipantI am still curious and still would like you to talk about the bad arguments that you hear Ag.
I had assumed that most people who knew something about global warming and weren’t employed by Exxon accepted global warming. It’s a very intuitive or maybe common sense theory. If you put tons of carbon particles in the air, there will be some type of impact. That’s Newton’s first law: for every action there’s an equal but opposite reaction.
I know though from my limited exposure to science that the world doesn’t always operate by rules that are intuitive. Light acts as both a particle and wave, a large percentage of the mass of the universe is made of material that we can’t see. So I am genuinely intrigued when you say that people are making bad arguments about this issue. I am constantly surprised by how many bad arguments I hear from professionals and “experts”.
And I am willing to listen and do a little reading because global warming isn’t issue that I’ve really examined before.
Can we start here? Do you believe NOAA when they say that 2016 is the warmest year ever recorded? Do you believe scientists who say that the ice caps are melting because of the warming?
I didn’t see your post before, Cal. I am not going to pursue this argument/discussion. I see no benefit from doing that. Everybody is free to look and reason and come to their own conclusions. If we don’t agree, we don’t agree. Have a beer. 😉 If I am wrong, I claim it is my constitutional right to be wrong. 😉 No one has to agree with me. I want them to make a concerted effort to do their own thinking. The people here do that, that is why I very seldom argue stuff. I just say my opinion and move on.
December 28, 2016 at 12:56 am #61941InvaderRamModeratorThere are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I’m guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice – who would ever want to breathe those fumes?i vote that everyone choose door number one and breathe deeply.
December 28, 2016 at 6:27 am #61942bnwBlockedThere are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I’m guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice – who would ever want to breathe those fumes?i vote that everyone choose door number one and breathe deeply.
The electricity for the electric car comes from fossil fuels. The energy to produce the electric car comes from fossil fuels. Same for the energy to produce photovoltaic cells. That spare engine in your hybrid that doubles or triples the effective range of your vehicle runs on fossil fuel.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.