- Joined
- Sep 3, 2018
- Messages
- 30,122
- Reaction score
- 3,395
- Location
- Meridian, Idaho
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I'm sorry. I'll back off from your safe space.
Rules are normally what Democrats crave. Did you know about that?
I'm sorry. I'll back off from your safe space.
Which is why there have also been massive technological improvements in battery technology. Air-based energy storage, graphene batteries, potential energy batteries, there's lot of work being done on this.
Due to the post ^^^^ above, who here believes I owe that poster a reply?What's your source for that? Let me guess, you'll either post another PragerU video (go figure, a guy with ties to the fossil fuel industry opposes actual science on climate change) or from a scientist being paid by a company that directly profits off the causes of climate change?
Another interesting point, is that if you asked many of the AGW proponents why this topic is so important to them,I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.
One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a relatively new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.
Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.
The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...
Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...
Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...
We have long had a history of people wanting to believe anything. It could be the Sun God. It could be the God of the Oceans. It can be the god of Climate fear.
He probably still sees "Commies" under his bed. Along with a lot of dust bunnies.You see a boogeyman? Lol
We have long had a history of people wanting to believe anything. It could be the Sun God. It could be the God of the Oceans. It can be the god of Climate fear.
Every single major science institution on the planet.Like who?
Rules are normally what Democrats crave. Did you know about that?
Yup, exactly. Its some sort of apocalyptic cult that hates human beings and worships nature.In this case, the religious believers, are the proponents of Catastrophic Human cause climate change!
They're called Republicans. LolYup, exactly. Its some sort of apocalyptic cult that hates human beings and worships nature.
Hi Robertinfremont,
Yes, that is true. And there is a good reason for it. There is a government in place for the sole reason of managing a country. This is done because without it there would be total anarchy. When rules are in place people function better. The less rules you have the more anarchy you have. People function better when they know what they have to do and what they should not be doing.
But, you have to be careful which rules you implement and how you implement these rules. You do not want a totalitarian system like China. But places like Singapore actually show that, under the right circumstances, this could work as well.
Anyway, we have democracies. And with that in mind, we should still keep in place and put in place many rules. Because if you let the rule making up to the people in the streets than there would be a lot more trouble than you see today in Portland, Oregon...
Joey
I have also in the past, this year in fact, Michael Shellenberger's excellent TED talks.And you can tell this about the video...without watching it?
I watch part of the video, and the section not about beliefs was related to the practical application of low duty cycle energy sources like wind and solar.
This is a very relevant discussion, because to assume we can supply the energy for our on demand world for low duty cycle sources is very naive.
Forget PragerU for a second, as the topic is well covered in a TED talk by a lifelong environmentalist.
Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger
Without massive energy storage, wind and solar cannot get us from where we are to where we need to be.
None of your last paragraph is trueI have also in the past, this year in fact, Michael Shellenberger's excellent TED talks.
He used to be a radical too.
My major problem with the alarmists is their tactics. If they want to tell me they will change something, that is wonderful. Stop forcing me to change is my requsst. If you believe the Eagle is a danger to windmills, great. I don't believe that but if you do, no harm to me. And yes I said a harm to windmills. Many environmentalists worry the deaths of the Eagles due to windmills will wipe out the Eagle. So the deaths would contribute to the death of windmills.
Climate is not your last hurricane or that tornado. Weather was those events. Simple heat is not a problem. 2 degrees over 150 years is in the regular course of nature. And were it the fault of man, it still does not matter at all. We tolerate such changes during our regular days and do not notice harm.
Batteries come with many problems too. Some batteries use precious limited source elements to improve them. Anyway in physics you learn that batteries are limited to a particular range of volts. Volts also called EMF is what forces electric currents to flow. In other words a V = 1.5 which is the accepted range of lead acid batteries just does not provide enough push to get a lot done. You will notice that at the high output AC supply systems at the Dams do not try to use the battery to store the current. AC can't be stored in batteries thus only DC can be stored. Also when one factors in the losses over the transmission lines, they find other problems too.Which is why there have also been massive technological improvements in battery technology. Air-based energy storage, graphene batteries, potential energy batteries, there's lot of work being done on this.
NASA is not a religious organizationBatteries come with many problems too. Some batteries use precious limited source elements to improve them. Anyway in physics you learn that batteries are limited to a particular range of volts. Volts also called EMF is what forces electric currents to flow. In other words a V = 1.5 which is the accepted range of lead acid batteries just does not provide enough push to get a lot done. You will notice that at the high output AC supply systems at the Dams do not try to use the battery to store the current. AC can't be stored in batteries thus only DC can be stored. Also when one factors in the losses over the transmission lines, they find other problems too.
In the ideal world our wind would blow at a steady rate for the entire year. Solar would not be limited to the daytime. The Greens are a religion, not a science.
That is truly thought provoking Jack and well researched.I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.
One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a relatively new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.
Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.
The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...
Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...
Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...
There is a term that comes to mind when such words like that are presented out of the clear blue sky. SPASTICNASA is not a religious organization
None of your last paragraph is true
There is a term that comes to mind when such words like that are presented out of the clear blue sky. SPASTIC
Were I to tell you that your home is a good example of total anarchy, does that strike fear into your heart?
The term anarchy is often, nay nearly always, misunderstood to mean bad.
I want us to return to the system of our founders, maximum freedom.
Hi Robertinfremont,
Yes, that is true. And there is a good reason for it. There is a government in place for the sole reason of managing a country. This is done because without it there would be total anarchy. When rules are in place people function better. The less rules you have the more anarchy you have. People function better when they know what they have to do and what they should not be doing.
But, you have to be careful which rules you implement and how you implement these rules. You do not want a totalitarian system like China. But places like Singapore actually show that, under the right circumstances, this could work as well.
Anyway, we have democracies. And with that in mind, we should still keep in place and put in place many rules. Because if you let the rule making up to the people in the streets than there would be a lot more trouble than you see today in Portland, Oregon...
Joey