Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric

[darius]

I also remember reading that Nancy Pelosi made a sizable investment in T. Boone Pickens wind farm company . . .

Old Boone had billions of dollars of wind machines made and waiting to be installed.  But the high cost of a new grid to handle the output supposedly derailed that effort.  We have several of them
west of my town about 40 miles, and there are gobs of them in Oklahoma.

I am not an environut or a tree hugger but I do support the concept of alternate energy devices and sources.  We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  This subject is something I have been interested in since we had a wake up call back in 1973. 

[Boomhauer]

I am not an environut or a tree hugger but I do support the concept of alternate energy devices and sources.  We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.

[darius]

Except there is no money to be made in cleaning up the garbage patch.  


Few if any people are against sane pollution controls.  Preferring folks not dump dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc into the water is perfectly understandable.  Hell, if folks were aware of what coal plants crank out in hard rads, uranium and thorium, they might be a bit more willing to embrace nuclear power plants.  Nothing wrong with requiring people to dispose of their waste responsibly and not needlessly wasting our resources.

But let's be honest.  The folks that actually care about the environment, do not have significant ulterior motives and possess any type of scientific/educated background are very, very rare.  Folks that advocate mass usage of solar panels are unaware of the very limited power they can produce and completely unaware of the manufacturing byproducts involved.  Folks that rant against modern agriculture are unaware that they'd sentence at least 1.7 billion people to death if successful.  etc, etc.  Very few "true" environmentalists want to actually protect the environment without killing billions of humans or reducing us to the Stone Ages.

A very significant number of environmentalists are interested making a buck via scams, misinformation or flatout gunpoint.  Another significant number of environmentalists are just flat out anti-capitalists, anti-modern Luddites, etc.  

Al Gore.  Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint.  It would be one thing if his views were backed with decades of hard science and provable, repeatable and heavily scrutinized results with clear published procedures and data.  This is not an unreasonable demand.  Virtually every branch of science demands such.  Why should climate change be any different?  

He may or may not be correct.  That is not the point.  The point is he wishes to transfer large sums of money from other people to himself at gunpoint.  That should require very, very good reason.  Which he flat out doesn't currently have.  I don't care whether you believe he is right or wrong.  No one yet has enough conclusive proof one way or the other and unfortunately with a cross between politics and often incompetent data collection, we are unlikely to GET conclusive proof because few folks on BOTH side seem to actually want it.  

If you really want to save the environment, go get an engineering degree and build real technology that is more efficient.  Go build a better chemical process that is more efficient, more profitable and reduces waste.  Reducing CO2 at gunpoint would be roughly one thousands of a single percent as efficient as making it actually profitable to reduce CO2 through greater efficiency or superior technology.  By actually profitable, I mean in a real economic way, not through government subsidies, threats of violence or other coercion that are the preferred tools of the most environmentalists.

A change of mindset will also reap generous yields in savings. I wrote a book on that and had it copyrighted. If my screen wasn't jumping I would go into more detail on what I proposed.

[darius]

I hope that in time you folks will see that I am not the butthole I may have come off to be. A guy going by the username of nraforlife told me of this site and I like what I see.

I am a moderate, a pragmatist, and a centrist, much to the chagrin of the extremists in the politcal spectrum.  I believe in obeying the law and if that law is wrong then the proper thing to do is to work to have it changed or repealed. 

It is fun to lip off and blow steam but when you expose your thoughts to the feds then you have shown your hand.  I am betting they read this stuff.  Yep, I am currently a part time census worker so I cannot express my true feelings in the matter.  However, that doesn't mean that I don't have some reservations about how it is being done or why.  I am not permitted to divulge certain things that I have learned about patrons but after this year I don't plan to do it again as I am becoming too old to tramp the streets and the dusty country roads.  Maybe we can talk more later in the year?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.

An interesting way to separate sensible people from the true believes is to ask people whether they're willing to allow people pursue ALL avenues of fueling the modern world, both conventional AND alternative.  The sensible person will be happy to have any viable alternative be explored.  The true believer will try to tell you that only his preferred methods should be allowed, other methods should be prohibited by legislative fiat.

Take it a step further and ask 'em if they're willing to let the oil-supporters fund oil development and let the wind/sun/whatever supporters fund wind/sun/whatever energy development.  Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into.  Enviro nuts always howl at that one.

[dm1333]

Headless Thompson Gunner,

I think all of those quotes and more are examples of emotion over ruling logic.

"A very significant number of environmentalists are interested making a buck via scams, misinformation or flatout gunpoint.  Another significant number of environmentalists are just flat out anti-capitalists, anti-modern Luddites, etc.   

"The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change."

"Al Gore.  Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint. "

"(Yes, and please cue the apologists to say: Climate isn't weather!!!1111) "

Do you really think Al Gore wants to enforce his views and take money from people at gunpoint?  The comments about environmentalists being anti capitalists, luddites, etc. is totally unprovable.  That style of argument is something I would expect to read on DU, it shouldn't be done here.  (yeah, that's right, I threw down the DU gauntlet).


I'm not sure wtf is going on with my computer so I'm about to end this post and try again.

[dm1333]

No more quoting things here for me because every time I do that my computer starts to freak out.  People have been posting here about how we can put a lot more carbon into the atmosphere and that until we hit 5000 ppm it won't be an issue and that we actually benefit from having more carbon in the atmosphere because it helps plants grow.  That is a simplistic argument which ignores the fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere has already been linked to increased acidification of the oceans.  You can either google CO2 effect on ocean acidification or I'll post a couple of articles here once I figure out what the h&** is wrong with my computer.

Some of the posts on here have been purely to get a rise out of people like makattacks jibe about apologists saying that climate isn't weather.  My point is why resort to cracks like that when you could just back up your argument with logical statements backed up by links to things that support your argument?

I'm not at all in favor of cap and trade or pushing solar power to the exclusion of everything else.  That is what drives me crazy about the left, the fixation on solar above everything else.  Wind power is cheaper right now than solar at least according to what I read in Home Power magazine.  If I could post a link here withoug my computer freaking out, I would..  Nuclear power to me is a perfectly good source of energy along with hydro power, natural gas and oil.  And since I'm typing in the blind agains as my post here randomly scrolls up and down I'm signing off for the night and doing some homework.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Headless Thompson Gunner,

I think all of those quotes and more are examples of emotion over ruling logic.

Do you really think Al Gore wants to enforce his views and take money from people at gunpoint?  The comments about environmentalists being anti capitalists, luddites, etc. is totally unprovable.  That style of argument is something I would expect to read on DU, it shouldn't be done here.  (yeah, that's right, I threw down the DU gauntlet).

Short answer, yes, I think all of those things.  

I think Al Gore and the other serious environuts are more than willing to use force of government (backed up by men with badges and guns for anyone who doesn't comply with the new laws) to take money from people.

I think the environmental movement has become a haven for dispossessed marxists after the failure of the Soviet Union.  Remarks I've read from early founders and leaders in the environmental movement back up my suspicions here.

I'd ask for an apology for the DU remark, too.  These ideas may seem controversial when first encountered, but they aren't based on sensationalism or emotion, and they definitely are not DU-esque.

[dm1333]

Headless Thompson Gunner,

You may think that Al Gore wants to enforce his views and take money from people at gunpoint by using the force of government.  I have no problem with that statement.

Al Gore.  Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint.

This statement is not even close to what you wrote.

Folks that rant against modern agriculture are unaware that they'd sentence at least 1.7 billion people to death if successful.  etc, etc. 

I asked for a link to that figure.  That is a reasonable request.  Show me where 1.7 billion people would be dead.

This post from jfruser is a better example of how it should have been done.

His work is the sort of thing the greenies whine about.  Absent Borlaug's work, yes, in excess of 1B more people would have starved to death in the last three or four decades.


Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

An apology for my DU remark?  Show me where I have attacked a person personally or violated the posting rules here.  I have taken exception to certain posts in this thread and stated why. 

[darius]

Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.

There are a lot of potential sites to make some home grown energy but unless the big boys sign on to it then the gubmint will fight to prevent it.  I live in a farm belt where we makes piles of surplus grains each year, and we apparently pay someone to take it off our hands as well as subsidizing mega farmers to grow the stuff.  Grain can be used to make ethanol and woody products can be used to make methanol.

Even though methanol has its drawbacks it is estimated that there is enough feedstock to make more than enough methanol to replace gasoline. Rail freight is much more fuel efficient than hiway freight and yet the unions and the tax authorities have driven the railway out of existence in man rural areas.

Kansas is flat to the casual observer, but there is appro. a 3600 foot drop in elevation from the highest point in the western part of the state to the KCMO area.  That is a lot of head for hydroelectric power, and at one time the rivers were dotted with small water powered plants, but no more.

[darius]

When the ability of photosynthesis is no longer able to keep balance with respiration.

Photosynthesis and cellular respiration are both balanced processes, and for quite a long time the output of one was able to balance the other.  That stopped sometime in the 18th century.

Also, Photosynthesis will increase (light intensity, amount of CO2 and Temperature) until limited by factors that I probably learned in Biology but can't remember and will have to look up.  The point being is that it's not an infinite curve; it does flatten out. 

Practically speaking, if a given amount of CO2 causes warming then that might be the point you are seeking relative to this discussion.  I think the corrosive effects occur outside our atmosphere but I may be wrong as I am rusty on the subject.

There are ways to limit our carbon foot print (how 'bout them buzzwords?) but who wants to hear about it?  If mega bucks can't be made by and energy baron then it isn't worth considering.  I have written a book called Fort Hickok A Green Community that deals with a change in mindset. Mind over matter so to speak, and I don't think it purports to harm anyone economically. Many of the ideas are patterned after the practices of the Amana Colonies.

[darius]

An interesting way to separate sensible people from the true believes is to ask people whether they're willing to allow people pursue ALL avenues of fueling the modern world, both conventional AND alternative.  The sensible person will be happy to have any viable alternative be explored.  The true believer will try to tell you that only his preferred methods should be allowed, other methods should be prohibited by legislative fiat.

Take it a step further and ask 'em if they're willing to let the oil-supporters fund oil development and let the wind/sun/whatever supporters fund wind/sun/whatever energy development.  Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into.  Enviro nuts always howl at that one.

Maybe Pickens means well but he is known to be an oil and gas tycoon and is a wheeler dealer.
As much as I like the idea of wind machines I couldn't see myself contributing to his political effort with donations.

The power that can be generated by a wind machine is mind boggling. it is like having a a 2600 hp cat diesel engine high on a stick. That is roughly 2 MW.

[darius]

My screen starts to jump after a few lines so let me continue with this reply to my own post.  In western Oklahoma along I-40 there are a number of wind farms.  Say from Clinton on west.  We stayed at Elk City one evening during the Memorial Day holiday and got back to the motel after midnite.  The wind was still very strong, probably 20mph or so.  That enviro makes for good wind machining.  
Going north of Elk City you have more wind farms in south of Fort Supply.  The sad part of this is that the best wind power is often not where the big demand for electrical power is and the line losses to transmit the power long distances is costly.

I used to take the Mother Earth News magazine years ago when it was still full of experimental ideas, about 1973 after the oil embargo.  There was a story about a large wind machine on the
Atlantic coast that operated for years and was finally destroyed by high winds. Why not?  Do it again and go it better.  This old thing was not mounted on the best of towers but it was a whopper in its day.

[darius]

Among other interesting effects of global warming, the Sahara is becoming more green.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html



Says it all.  Al Gore has ceased to become a somewhat rational human being (if he ever was one).  He's now a numbers-driven entertainer, willing to sell himself to whatever cause he thinks will get him more money and attention.

Wow, what a sex symbol, like a pregnant whale.   

[darius]

An interesting way to separate sensible people from the true believes is to ask people whether they're willing to allow people pursue ALL avenues of fueling the modern world, both conventional AND alternative.  The sensible person will be happy to have any viable alternative be explored.  The true believer will try to tell you that only his preferred methods should be allowed, other methods should be prohibited by legislative fiat.

Take it a step further and ask 'em if they're willing to let the oil-supporters fund oil development and let the wind/sun/whatever supporters fund wind/sun/whatever energy development.  Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into.  Enviro nuts always howl at that one.

I don't dig the ratinale of the liberals who want to remain dependent upon foreign oil, but who said they were reational anyway.  We could use the billions that are sent oseas to the shieks.  So what if a domestric corp makes out on it, at least some Americans could have some jobs and the taxes off of production might come in handy.

The silly doofs must think that money for their socialistic handouts grows on trees. Why borrrow from the Red Chinese when we can grow our own revnues? I wish we didn't have these budget busters but if we are to have them then lets get smart about funding them.

[roo_ster]

dm1333:

My job is to put the"anal" into analysis, so arguing from data, numbers, & empiricism in general is my default state.  That does not make some other methods illegitimate, the big three being ethos, pathos, & logos.

For example, folks' contention that Algore wants to impose the Vision of the Anointed* by means of force is simple logic:
Gov't is force, the greens want gov't to impose these measures, therefore the greens want to use force to impose their vision on the rest of us.





* http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268757836&sr=1-1-spell

[Tallpine]

[darius]My screen starts to jump after a few lines

[dm1333]my post here randomly scrolls up and down

Why are you posting under two different screen names?

[darius]

Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.

I hear that. A lot of energy could be developed by small scale applications, particularly out in the
rural areas, if the regs would allow it.  Small hydro ponds, fuel pellets, hydrogen generators, and the ike.

I have a fancy wood pellet stove but it will not tolerate much ash buildup and I must use a high quality pellet.  What is needed is one that would burn trashy fuel and could be easily cleaned out
as needed.  I have to take a fan housing off mine to get at the buildup at the base of the flue, and is is not something that everyone would want to do.

[Desertdog]

Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into.

T Boone gave up his dream of the big wind farm in Texas.  The cost of running the power line was too much.

[Scout26]

I have zero problems with private enterprises developing either new or existing sources or fuel and power.  What I do have a problem with is the .gov getting involved either through subsidies or coercion. 

If the .gov would get out the way then we'd be hell of a lot further along in the development of alternative sources.  Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers did not need .gov subsidies to change the world.   

[dm1333]

Why are you posting under two different screen names?

Tallpine,

I'll assume you are asking that question with the best of intentions and I can even understand why you might think I am posting under two names.  But I'm not.  Would you like to ask a mod to verify that I am not darius or should I do it?

[Tallpine]

Tallpine,

I'll assume you are asking that question with the best of intentions and I can even understand why you might think I am posting under two names.  But I'm not.  Would you like to ask a mod to verify that I am not darius or should I do it?

I've already had a mod check it out 

Just seems rather weird that two posters would have the same video problems, while posting similar viewpints 

[darius]

No more quoting things here for me because every time I do that my computer starts to freak out.  People have been posting here about how we can put a lot more carbon into the atmosphere and that until we hit 5000 ppm it won't be an issue and that we actually benefit from having more carbon in the atmosphere because it helps plants grow.  That is a simplistic argument which ignores the fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere has already been linked to increased acidification of the oceans.  You can either google CO2 effect on ocean acidification or I'll post a couple of articles here once I figure out what the h&** is wrong with my computer.

Some of the posts on here have been purely to get a rise out of people like makattacks jibe about apologists saying that climate isn't weather.  My point is why resort to cracks like that when you could just back up your argument with logical statements backed up by links to things that support your argument?

I'm not at all in favor of cap and trade or pushing solar power to the exclusion of everything else.  That is what drives me crazy about the left, the fixation on solar above everything else.  Wind power is cheaper right now than solar at least according to what I read in Home Power magazine.  If I could post a link here withoug my computer freaking out, I would..  Nuclear power to me is a perfectly good source of energy along with hydro power, natural gas and oil.  And since I'm typing in the blind agains as my post here randomly scrolls up and down I'm signing off for the night and doing some homework.

Mine is already jumping around.  It seems to be site dependent.

[dogmush]

This won't add to the conversation at all:


Wow, all the techies on here use firefox huh?



DM and Darius, it's an IE8 bug when you fill in the reply box.

Run it in compatability mode and the jumping around stops.

[dm1333]

What dogmush said,

This won't add to the conversation at all:


Wow, all the techies on here use firefox huh?



DM and Darius, it's an IE8 bug when you fill in the reply box.

Run it in compatability mode and the jumping around stops.

what I understood


blah blah blah blah

blah blah DM and Darius blah blah