Why we should listen to the 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not without water. Of course, perhaps in some of the places where the rain moved to the plants would do better.

Wait. We're out of places too.

You have no evidence that the rain would move. The fact is that during warmer periods rain was more plentiful and more widespread. Famines were almost unheard of. After about the year 500, when the world became much colder, famines in Europe were common.

Tell the people in flooded Colorado, or burning California, or the parched plains that we have no evidence that the rain is moving.

Because it never rained before in Colorado and there were never fires in California.

 

[bripat9643]

Temporary things like wind and sunshine?

Have you heard that we're running out of wind and sunshine?

No, but I have heard that the wind doesn't blow all the time and that sunshine is interrupted by something called night time.

They also get a lot of sunshine in places like Minnesota and Washington state. The wind always blows the hardest right next to major cities.

 

[bripat9643]

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

If the government mandates changes, it will take twice as long and cost three times as much.

It will also be the wrong solution.

 

[Abraham3]

The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government. The two things are opposites, not synonyms.

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1]
The emergence of civilization is generally associated with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, a slow cumulative process occurring independently over many locations between 10,000 and 3,000 BCE, culminating in the relatively rapid process of state formation, a political development associated with the appearance of a governing elite. This neolithic technology and lifestyle was established first in the Middle east (for example at Göbekli Tepe, from about 9,130 BCE), and Yangtze and later Yellow river basin in China (for example the Pengtoushan culture from 7,500 BCE), and later spread. But similar "revolutions" also began independently from 9,000 years ago in such places as Mesoamerica at the Balsas River[2] and in Papua New Guinea. This revolution consisted in the development of the domestication of plants and animals and the development of new sedentary lifestyles which allowed economies of scale and productive surpluses.
Towards the end of the Neolithic period, various Bronze Age civilizations begin to rise in various "cradles" from around 3300 BCE. Civilizations, as defined above, also developed in Pre-Columbian Americas and much later in Africa. The Bronze Age collapse was followed by the Iron Age around 1200 BCE. A major technological and cultural transition to modernity began approximately 1500 CE in western Europe, and from this beginning new approaches to science and law spread rapidly around the world.[3]
Assessments of what level of civilization a polity has reached are based on comparisons of the relative importance of agricultural as opposed to trade or manufacturing capacities, the territorial extensions of its power, the complexity of its division of labor, and the carrying capacity of its urban centres. Secondary elements include a developed transportation system, writing, standardized measurement, currency, contractual and tort-based legal systems, art, architecture, mathematics, scientific understanding, metallurgy, political structures, and organized religion.
Traditionally, polities that managed to achieve notable military, ideological and economic power defined themselves as "civilized" as opposed to other societies or human grouping which lay outside their sphere of influence, calling the latter barbarians, savages, and primitives. while in a modern-day context, "civilized people" have been contrasted with indigenous people or tribal societies. Use of the word "civilized" is often controversial because it could imply superiority or inferiority. There is a controversial tendency to use the term in a less strict way, to mean approximately the same thing as "culture" and therefore, the term can more broadly refer to any important and clearly defined human society.[4] Still, even when used in this second sense, the word is often restricted to apply only to societies that have a certain set of characteristics, especially the founding of cities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

If the government mandates changes, it will take twice as long and cost three times as much.

It will also be the wrong solution.

Oh come on, thousands are employed by Solyndra making the best solar panels ever.

 

[bripat9643]

They are part of the solution. Just like hydro, nuclear and biomass.

However you don't have to worry about the solution. Smart people will take care of you.

ROFL! They will never be part of the solution. Dumb people put all their chips on wind, solar and biomass. Furthermore, wind and solar are not a replacement for oil. Batteries will never be a good substitute for gasoline.

This is exactly why nobody will consult you on energy issues. You have less than zero technological experience. The problem is so far beyond you that every time you post, solutions get farther away.

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, you ridiculous boob.

What you wish was true was fossil fuels in unlimited easily available supply, with no consequences of their use.

Talk about a fantasy.

I think everyone wishes that. In the mean time, fossil fuels are 1000 times better than wind and solar. You can't put the later in the gas tank. Neither of them are dependable, and they are many times more diffuse than oil. A solar installation has to cover hundreds of acres to produce as much power as a single coal fired power plant. And what happens in the winter on a cloudy day, we all freeze to death?

 

[bripat9643]

The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government. The two things are opposites, not synonyms.

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

 

[PMZ]

I'm hoping that many denier posts from here get preserved in the Dunning-Kruger Museum of the Cost of Ignorance. They are magnificent and lavish in pure, unadulterated lack of knowledge and reason.

If it takes a million monkeys with a million typewriters a million years to accidently produce the world's greatest novel, a couple could produce the cognitive mush that deniers post here in a couple of minutes.

 

[PMZ]

ROFL! They will never be part of the solution. Dumb people put all their chips on wind, solar and biomass. Furthermore, wind and solar are not a replacement for oil. Batteries will never be a good substitute for gasoline.

This is exactly why nobody will consult you on energy issues. You have less than zero technological experience. The problem is so far beyond you that every time you post, solutions get farther away.

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, you ridiculous boob.

What you wish was true was fossil fuels in unlimited easily available supply, with no consequences of their use.

Talk about a fantasy.

I think everyone wishes that. In the mean time, fossil fuels are 1000 times better than wind and solar. You can't put the later in the gas tank. Neither of them are dependable, and they are many times more diffuse than oil. A solar installation has to cover hundreds of acres to produce as much power as a single coal fired power plant. And what happens in the winter on a cloudy day, we all freeze to death?

Completely irrelevant, every word. Only two things are relevant.

What are we going to replace them with before they're gone?

What's the least expensive path considering their replacement and the cost of mitigating the consequences of the AGW that their continuing use will cause?

 

[bripat9643]

This is exactly why nobody will consult you on energy issues. You have less than zero technological experience. The problem is so far beyond you that every time you post, solutions get farther away.

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, you ridiculous boob.

What you wish was true was fossil fuels in unlimited easily available supply, with no consequences of their use.

Talk about a fantasy.

I think everyone wishes that. In the mean time, fossil fuels are 1000 times better than wind and solar. You can't put the later in the gas tank. Neither of them are dependable, and they are many times more diffuse than oil. A solar installation has to cover hundreds of acres to produce as much power as a single coal fired power plant. And what happens in the winter on a cloudy day, we all freeze to death?

Completely irrelevant, every word. Only two things are relevant.

What are we going to replace them with before they're gone?

What's the least expensive path considering their replacement and the cost of mitigating the consequences of the AGW that their continuing use will cause?

In the long run, fusion will replace all our current power sources. However, we can run on fossil fuels for the next 200 years until fusion becomes practicable and cheap, especially if we can manage to reduce the Earth's population to something more reasonable like 2-3 billion people.

Wind and solar are pipe dreams.

For the record, there are no consequences that need to be "mitigated." AGW is a hoax.

 

[PMZ]

The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government. The two things are opposites, not synonyms.

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

I'm pretty sure that this post is record breaking idiocy.

 

[PMZ]

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, you ridiculous boob.



I think everyone wishes that. In the mean time, fossil fuels are 1000 times better than wind and solar. You can't put the later in the gas tank. Neither of them are dependable, and they are many times more diffuse than oil. A solar installation has to cover hundreds of acres to produce as much power as a single coal fired power plant. And what happens in the winter on a cloudy day, we all freeze to death?

Completely irrelevant, every word. Only two things are relevant.

What are we going to replace them with before they're gone?

What's the least expensive path considering their replacement and the cost of mitigating the consequences of the AGW that their continuing use will cause?

In the long run, fusion will replace all our current power sources. However, we can run on fossil fuels for the next 200 years until fusion becomes practicable and cheap, especially if we can manage to reduce the Earth's population to something more reasonable like 2-3 billion people.

Wind and solar are pipe dreams.

For the record, there are no consequences that need to be "mitigated." AGW is a hoax.

Science doesn't know if controlled fusion ls possible.

What's your plan to reduce global population. War? Starvation? Imposing birth control? Death camps?

Your pipe dreams are harvesting a lot of fuel free, waste free energy around the world.

AGW denial is only a political delusion that you are unequipped to defend yourself from. The rest of us choose to live in the real world.

 

[bripat9643]

Are they?

Here, Patrick. For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

I'm pretty sure that this post is record breaking idiocy.

"Pretty sure" but not totally sure?

What did government ever contribute to society? Do you think pyramids were beneficial for all the serfs who built them?

 

[bripat9643]

Completely irrelevant, every word. Only two things are relevant.

What are we going to replace them with before they're gone?

What's the least expensive path considering their replacement and the cost of mitigating the consequences of the AGW that their continuing use will cause?

In the long run, fusion will replace all our current power sources. However, we can run on fossil fuels for the next 200 years until fusion becomes practicable and cheap, especially if we can manage to reduce the Earth's population to something more reasonable like 2-3 billion people.

Wind and solar are pipe dreams.

For the record, there are no consequences that need to be "mitigated." AGW is a hoax.

Science doesn't know if controlled fusion ls possible.

It's far more confident of that than whether it can ever make wind and solar economical feasible. Several projects are close to producing net positive power output. However, they aren't economical. There's hardly any doubt that within 20-30 years they will have economical fusion power generation.

What's your plan to reduce global population. War? Starvation? Imposing birth control? Death camps?

Global population is already on a trend that means it will start declining in the middle of this century.

Your pipe dreams are harvesting a lot of fuel free, waste free energy around the world.

Whoever claimed it was "free?" However, even at $100/bbl, oil is still far cheaper than any of the pipe dreams you want to force us all to pay for.

AGW denial is only a political delusion that you are unequipped to defend yourself from. The rest of us choose to live in the real world.

I can barely stop myself from laughing out loud every time you post that you are living in the real world.

 

[westwall]

100 years or so.

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

It will never happen with your technology. It is simply too primitive and inefficient. Nuclear power with some sort of Tesla broadcast system would revolutionize the energy transportation systems of the world.

Your systems will hinder real progress. Yours is a major step backwards.

 

[westwall]

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

No. Human civilization is - roughly. And as it has grown over the years, it has gained...momentum and inertia. The mass of our infrastructure has made it less and less and less and less flexible. Seven thousand years ago, a slow flood such as we'll be experiencing in the next century, would hardly draw any notice. People could carry everything they owned on their back. They'd just pick it all up and move. Now, not so much.

Actually, what you describe is conservative progress. No civilization, no government, no education, no energy, no laws, only wandering warring tribes. But unlimited freedom to live miserable lives, and low taxes.

Sounds like just what you want...

 

[bripat9643]

No. Human civilization is - roughly. And as it has grown over the years, it has gained...momentum and inertia. The mass of our infrastructure has made it less and less and less and less flexible. Seven thousand years ago, a slow flood such as we'll be experiencing in the next century, would hardly draw any notice. People could carry everything they owned on their back. They'd just pick it all up and move. Now, not so much.

Actually, what you describe is conservative progress. No civilization, no government, no education, no energy, no laws, only wandering warring tribes. But unlimited freedom to live miserable lives, and low taxes.

Sounds like just what you want...

Yep, that's the whole point of the environmental movement, isn't it? They want to force us to live like Stone Age savages.

 

[PMZ]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Government is a parasite on civilization. It always has been.

I'm pretty sure that this post is record breaking idiocy.

"Pretty sure" but not totally sure?

What did government ever contribute to society? Do you think pyramids were beneficial for all the serfs who built them?

Now, this is the new record.

 

[PMZ]

In the long run, fusion will replace all our current power sources. However, we can run on fossil fuels for the next 200 years until fusion becomes practicable and cheap, especially if we can manage to reduce the Earth's population to something more reasonable like 2-3 billion people.

Wind and solar are pipe dreams.

For the record, there are no consequences that need to be "mitigated." AGW is a hoax.

Science doesn't know if controlled fusion ls possible.

It's far more confident of that than whether it can ever make wind and solar economical feasible. Several projects are close to producing net positive power output. However, they aren't economical. There's hardly any doubt that within 20-30 years they will have economical fusion power generation.



Global population is already on a trend that means it will start declining in the middle of this century.

Your pipe dreams are harvesting a lot of fuel free, waste free energy around the world.

Whoever claimed it was "free?" However, even at $100/bbl, oil is still far cheaper than any of the pipe dreams you want to force us all to pay for.

AGW denial is only a political delusion that you are unequipped to defend yourself from. The rest of us choose to live in the real world.

I can barely stop myself from laughing out loud every time you post that you are living in the real world.

You are funny. You are confident in controlled fusion which has never been achieved in a useful way but uncertain about wind and solar that are being built everyday all over the world.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PMZ]

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

It will never happen with your technology. It is simply too primitive and inefficient. Nuclear power with some sort of Tesla broadcast system would revolutionize the energy transportation systems of the world.

Your systems will hinder real progress. Yours is a major step backwards.

Your solution, wait for a perfect solution which isn't even invented yet, is a dream.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2