Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Hmm, Global warming stopped 16 years ago...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 3.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 10:58pm
I agree with the angry scott about fannying about with the the environment. We know what CFCs do because of chemistry (ozone hole, not global warming) and that controls on them have been at least partially effective, but it's nice to see that nobody seems to actually understand what are thought to be the causes of climate change or the ozone hole, let alone if they are actually observable. I'm glad our public discourse has become so twisted that we don't know what we're actually arguing about. Also, Bush knew about Peal Harbor.
Back to Top
RoboCop View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Aw man, my butt is rusted...

Joined: 06 November 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5040
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RoboCop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 11:16pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

Originally posted by RoboCop RoboCop wrote:

Even if this were true, it would be a horrible thing to tell the public. So many people would think they can now pollute as much as they want because nothing is happening.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I don't care if the world has stopped getting warmer, advancement in technology and less reliance on oil is what we need to look for. Our infrastructure needs to be revamped and the government needs to be able to take charge of some of it. We can't have alternate fuels for the masses because the government wants private companies to do it. There isn't a company working towards alternate fuels that could support changing, for example, our vehicle fuels to electricity or hydrogen.


You had me till there. Then I was throwing up.
How do you propose we go about doing it then? I think once the technology is there and actually feasible, someone has to make the plunge to make it nationwide or it will never get done.

You guys should read Why We Hate the Oil Companies. It was written by a former president of Shell Oil. He has a lot of good information about the future of energy.

SandMan:"oh yeah, sporx is totally hot"
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Online
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 11:28pm
Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

I took you for a conservative usaf, not a republican.


Probably the best way to describe me. Very fiscally conservative, kind of a mixed bag socially(pro-gay marriage, pro-life*, etc.)


Originally posted by RoboCop RoboCop wrote:


Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:


You had me till there. Then I was throwing up.

How do you propose we go about doing it then? I think once the technology is there and actually feasible, someone has to make the plunge to make it nationwide or it will never get done.

You guys should read Why We Hate the Oil Companies. It was written by a former president of Shell Oil. He has a lot of good information about the future of energy.


Who do you propose pay for that research if government takes it over? Who gets to distribute and sell it if they make the breakthrough?

Edited by usafpilot07 - 14 October 2012 at 11:32pm
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by RoboCop RoboCop wrote:

Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

Originally posted by RoboCop RoboCop wrote:

Even if this were true, it would be a horrible thing to tell the public. So many people would think they can now pollute as much as they want because nothing is happening.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I don't care if the world has stopped getting warmer, advancement in technology and less reliance on oil is what we need to look for. Our infrastructure needs to be revamped and the government needs to be able to take charge of some of it. We can't have alternate fuels for the masses because the government wants private companies to do it. There isn't a company working towards alternate fuels that could support changing, for example, our vehicle fuels to electricity or hydrogen.


You had me till there. Then I was throwing up.
How do you propose we go about doing it then? I think once the technology is there and actually feasible, someone has to make the plunge to make it nationwide or it will never get done.
 
Once the technology is there the market will demand it. Until the market demands it the government
can only fund R&D programs but it can't wedge the technology into the market itself.
 
We need not only existent technology that's feasible, but we need it to be cost effective. It's why so few people drive electric cars-they're very expensive and give very little bang for the buck.
 
I think we've made great strides the past decade in introducing people to Hybrid engine designs and alternative fuel sources but this is going to take alot of time and while the government is continually pushing and funding advancements it can't just step in and say "Okay guys, we're tearing down the gas stations and putting in recharge stations."
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4894
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 11:39pm
This is way out there but I'm hearing that iran has feasible, renewable energy technology that people making money from oil and nuclear power don't like. Just heard it and haven't given much weight to it.

I listen to quite a bit of scientific community stuff.

Edited by Lightningbolt - 14 October 2012 at 11:51pm
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
scotchyscotch View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Currently awaiting brand new strikes.

Joined: 09 October 2006
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scotchyscotch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2012 at 11:52pm
If I'm completely honest I don't know the difference between a republican and a conservative. 
The Reaper "And yet... His facebook says he "likes" Coons..."
Back to Top
RoboCop View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Aw man, my butt is rusted...

Joined: 06 November 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5040
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RoboCop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 12:27am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:


 
Once the technology is there the market will demand it. Until the market demands it the government
can only fund R&D programs but it can't wedge the technology into the market itself.
 
We need not only existent technology that's feasible, but we need it to be cost effective. It's why so few people drive electric cars-they're very expensive and give very little bang for the buck.
 
I think we've made great strides the past decade in introducing people to Hybrid engine designs and alternative fuel sources but this is going to take alot of time and while the government is continually pushing and funding advancements it can't just step in and say "Okay guys, we're tearing down the gas stations and putting in recharge stations."
The worst part about this is that the market will only demand it once the price of gas has gone up to the point it is more cost effective to buy new technology than it is to keep shoveling money to old energy methods. So all the low income families are going to be stuck having to take on a loan for a car that can get them to work when they already have a working car that they can't pay the gas bill for anymore. The reason why electric cars are so expensive is because not everyone will buy them because they don't have infrastructure around them to support the cars. Once electric cars are being built in large numbers, their price will drop and be more affordable.
In no way can this be an immediate change of going from gas to electric. Which is why something needs to be chosen and put forth. Once the time comes where we do have to make a change, it will be so late in the game that we are stuck with an energy crisis.
I would still like to hear who would build the infrastructure across the nation. For the companies that are in the alternate fuel business, none of them are going to be able to pay for it.

SandMan:"oh yeah, sporx is totally hot"
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 12:44am
Originally posted by RoboCop RoboCop wrote:

The worst part about this is that the market will only demand it once the price of gas has gone up to the point it is more cost effective to buy new technology than it is to keep shoveling money to old energy methods
 
I completely agree, but I don't think it's hopeless. The current price of gas is really a burden and won't do anything but go up-if we could just get a valid source somewhere close to what we spend on gas and with a similar power output I think Americans would gobble it up.
 
For instance I've mentioned on here I drive an hour every day to work. This usually figures out at around a 72 mile round trip. I do this 4 8-hour shifts a week. Combine that with my 4 16 mile round trips to college and any extracurricular activities plus the fact I'm using two vehicles to cut down on wear and tear my gas bill is around 400 dollars a month. That's with my V8 Mustang and my V6 F-150 getting 25 MPG on average, so it's not like I get absolutely horrendous gas mileage.
 
That's split rent on a nice apartment around here. So I was doing the math the other day and realized that, at my pay, I could easily chop two days a week off of my work and switch to 12 hour shifts and the offset wouldn't be bad enough to convince me to keep working 4 days a week AND doing college 4 days a week. So I dropped 400 bucks a month in pay but I'm now paying around 150 bucks a month less in gas so I figure the offset is worth having 5 days a week off to focus on school.
 
So the market is ripe and I do believe that we're slowly but surely seeing the transition to alternative fuel vehicles take place, but I don't think we'll see gas dethroned in this or even the next couple of decades. I know here in Texas Hybrid stickers are becoming a very common sight.
 
Originally posted by RoboCop RoboCop wrote:

Once the time comes where we do have to make a change, it will be so late in the game that we are stuck with an energy crisis.
 
I think the upcoming energy crisis is going to involve China stepping in and taking a portion of our share of the Middle Eastern oil market. I think this is going to be the source of many future foreign disputes. I highly doubt we'll be on an alternative source before then.
Back to Top
RoboCop View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Aw man, my butt is rusted...

Joined: 06 November 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5040
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RoboCop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 1:03am
We have plenty of oil to last us a long time. We are finding more and more of it. The Keystone pipeline will be finished once the election is over and more oil will be hitting the US refineries. I just think we need to focus on these things now to be ahead of everyone else in the future. Look at Japan, they are so scared to use their nuclear plants, they have to import oil like never before. The country should find a way to be more self reliant without having to demolish the land. Romney wants to drill like there is no tomorrow and cut funding for renewable energy. There is something extremely flawed with that. If the government were to help with a new infrastructure, I'm sure they could just tax it like they do gas. Besides, gas stations don't profit off of gas sales, it's all in the convenience stores. We basically pay large amounts of taxes and some towards oil companies (more like refineries) every time we buy gas. 

Oh and as far as China and other countries, yes, when developing countries begin to use more fuel, we will have an energy crisis and an environment issue. Regulating pollution is expensive and countries need to work together to make sure that new development is monitored for the environment. 


Edited by RoboCop - 15 October 2012 at 1:06am

SandMan:"oh yeah, sporx is totally hot"
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:07am
Something no one has explained to my satisfaction is how a hole in the ozone layer, which lets in more ionizing radiation which excited O2 and allows it to bond into O3, is a problem.

Sure CFC's do reduce O3 into O2+02, but them more radiation comes in and creates more 03......

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4894
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 6:32am
More sun equals more ice cap melt.

Explaining how I've stayed on topic- radiation from the sun and nuclear technologies is bad for glaciers.

The depletion of the ozone also allows additional spectrums of light in which contributes to skin cancer.

Edited by Lightningbolt - 15 October 2012 at 6:54am
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4927
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 12:47pm
Terrible chart.  Global warming is an issue that spans centuries, not years.  You can not get an accurate view of a trend that big by only looking at a 16 year time period.  I'm not saying it hasn't stopped, but taking such a small sampling like that chart did, is usually only done to skew data.  
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:11pm
Originally posted by RoboCop RoboCop wrote:

Even if this were true, it would be a horrible thing to tell the public. So many people would think they can now pollute as much as they want because nothing is happening.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I don't care if the world has stopped getting warmer, advancement in technology and less reliance on oil is what we need to look for. Our infrastructure needs to be revamped and the government needs to be able to take charge of some of it. We can't have alternate fuels for the masses because the government wants private companies to do it. There isn't a company working towards alternate fuels that could support changing, for example, our vehicle fuels to electricity or hydrogen.


In this thread we learn it's okay for the government, media and scientists to lie to the schmucks in the general public as long as it serves the correct political agenda . . .

Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Always amazes me how something as simple as pollution being bad is STILL somehow up for debate, and somehow becomes a political issue. Only America would tie global warming with taxes.

Jesus people, come on. Don't pollute, do you REALLY need someone to explain why? The world is ALWAYS undergoing climate change, because that's just how it works and always has worked (unless you think the ice age didnt happen or something) and we should try to not make it worse. And if we dont impact climate change, then you still shouldn't be an idiot and pollute.


. . . and certain liberal arguments can morph to fit possibly new and inconvenient facts just like everyone accuses FE of doing.
Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4927
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:21pm
Why is conservation suddenly a liberal argument?  
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:32pm
Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

More sun equals more ice cap melt.

Explaining how I've stayed on topic- radiation from the sun and nuclear technologies is bad for glaciers.

The depletion of the ozone also allows additional spectrums of light in which contributes to skin cancer.


Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:50pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

In this thread we learn it's okay for the government, media and scientists to lie to the schmucks in the general public as long as it serves the correct political agenda . . .
 
I think this is an overstretch of what's being stated here.
 
Let me fix it for you:
 
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

In this thread we learn it's okay for the government, media and scientists to oversimplify an argument to the uneducated general public as long as it serves a humanitarian cause. . .
 
Again, subtract the ecoscience and add in economics. Like modern Facebook small government conservatism. People are arguing for a Laissez-faire form of capitalism here lately with absolutely regard for what it means. The general public is only vaguely aware of most issues, be they scientific, economic, huminitarian, etc.
 
It's like ideological tendencies based on economic shifts. In good times people want unregulated capitalism with no government interference but as soon as the economy tanks they want the government to step in and make sure their business doesn't fail or that they don't starve. There's no commitment to an idea or a view of the overall scheme of things.
 
When this kind of terrible logic is applied to society it's destructive. That's why, to some degree, the government does know best, in the way that a collaberated group of experts, biased or not, are going to hold more knowledge and weight than the average joe who never even heard of climate change until Fox News told him that Al Gore was a jackass.
 
So I don't think we're talking about pushing lies, we're saying that, if the market was left to its own wiles, we'd still be dumping toxic waste in rivers and some politician would be lobbying to keep their profits intact.
 
I consider myself a fairly smart individual, but I have literally no concept of any ecoscience. So I don't feel that my ideas or opinions hold any water-the vast majority of Americans would never admit this though, and so you have two camps fighting for ideas that neither really understands. So to that extent I agree that the general public should not be handed decisions in areas that they're likely uneducated in.
 
On the flip side of that coin, I don't feel that the left side of the debate makes any effort to quantiy the effects of pollution controls on business as opposed to the benefit received. So where we're left in the dark is that, "Hey it's beneficial in some way so business should be obliged to pay for it." That's where I drop off support for that particular camp of the eco debate.
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4894
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:52pm
Understood choop. Are you taking into consideration, melt downs and nuclear bomb testing? It's not as simple as you are stating. All is fine with nuclear power until there is a disaster. They are still getting powder keg'd like no other in japan.

During the beginnings of nuclear bomb development, it was our german scientists vs russia's   german scientists. The brilliant minds behind the science are now speeding up their process of eliminating.

I'm all for removing coal power too.
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4894
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:58pm
Strato; I like your pure definition of liberal. Imo, any negative definition of the pure meaning of liberal, setting aside the political definition, bleeds across the party lines.
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Online
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

Understood choop. Are you taking into consideration, melt downs and nuclear bomb testing? It's not as simple as you are stating. All is fine with nuclear power until there is a disaster. They are still getting powder keg'd like no other in japan.

.


I can't find anything reputable that backs this up. For the most part, the radiation releases were a lot less tragic than they were originally(ie; right when the disaster happened) expected to be. As far as wide spread data relevant to environmental impact, cleanup, etc., they won't have a ton of long term data until next May, at best, and maybe not until the following March.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2012 at 6:41pm
Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

Understood choop. Are you taking into consideration, melt downs and nuclear bomb testing? It's not as simple as you are stating. All is fine with nuclear power until there is a disaster. They are still getting powder keg'd like no other in japan.


Let me point this out to you, you are outright wrong on all accounts.

Cumulative releases of radiation by burning coal has outstripped all nuclear testing and accidents combined.

Curie to Curie, it is orders of magnitude greater from burning coal than from all the testing and accidents.

Secondly, they aren't sitting on a powder keg in Japan, in fact, it is much, much less worse than they thought it was. While TEPCO voluntarily elevated the status of the accident to a INES 2 incident, it is actually hundreds of times less disastrous as the Chernobyl incident. Case in point, the evacuation zone has been systematically repopulated for months now.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.