I doubt it, because there are many people who bathe daily who understand that we currently have no replacement for burning fossil fuels to meet our energy needs.
Such people are fucked then, because fossil fuels are finite.
They also tend to smell, they smell of fumes and grease.
If the doctor tells you that lump on your body means you need a heart transplant, do you trust the doctor, or do you ask for a second opinion?
You go to a doctor, he does a biopsy and tells yo you have cancer, need to do chemotherapy and give up smoking. The chemo is going to make you nauseous for many months and make your hair fall out, and you don't really want to give up smoking so yo go to another doctor with a reputation for saying everything is going to be all right. Your second opinion says everything is going to be all right. Forget the Chemo, and keep on smoking.
Now you have one of each opinion, so you're not sure. And being wealthy you decide to go and get more opinions. 30 more opinions in fact, all of which say you have cancer, need chemo and should stop smoking.
Now what do you do? Self diagnosis? Argue with the one doctor against the 31? Or deal with the cancer you've clearly got?
That's the scale of professional opinion we're talking about with AGW. In the doctor scenario you'd be mad not to take the treatment for chemo.
And yet some people do. Steve Jobs, had money for as many doctors opinions as he wanted. Yet he delayed proper medical treatment for his cancer for 9 months, trying out some alternative therapy diet instead.
People can act stupidly. Deniers of AGW are acting stupidly.
We're not talking about an evolution here we're talking about a major upgrade to a power generation/distribution system. This is not a small thing, no matter how much you tell yourself its an evolution.
Evolution does not imply small. The fact is that you do not built X power stations in anticipation of Y. And only start building Y when all the power stations are in place. They happen together.
There are existing problems which should be higher priority than moving everyone to electric vehicles.
What is it with you and the only doing one thing at a time argument? Many problems are all tackled simultaneously in the real world.
We are reduced to you making counter-claims to mine. I am not motivated enough to correct you by finding citations
Well that's pretty well my position too. You go on to list 3 indisputable facts. And they're not facts at all. To be honest you're boring me with dull and uninformed opinions.
The theory still stands, what was debunked is the theory that peak oil means running out.
Peak oil never meant running out. Right from the coining of the term in the 1950s by Hubbert, it was always about peak of oil production, not the end of oil.
Your information is out of date. Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked.
Nonsense. There's nothing new about shale oil. It's been known about and extracted in small quantities for centuries. It's extremely inefficient to extract. The very fact that the oil industry has begun to turn to that old crap source of oil is a demonstration that we're passing the peak. Shale oil is a source used on the way down the slope, after the peak, when high oil prices make it worthwhile.
Bio-fuels are outside of peak il theory, but are not a solution to it. The amount of vegetable matter that you need to produce the massive amounts of oil that humans use, would take up all the worlds arable land,leaving us nowhere to produce food for the every expanding population.
As the droughts have affected Saskatchewan and US mid-west farmers over the past few years, I fail to see how "it's mostly poor black people affected."
Broaden your fucking horizons. World news doesn't mean the 50 states. Think Africa.
The gist of the article is that a succession of droughts over several years meant that they no longer had enough water to support their population numbers. Which caused resource wars between different city states, resulting in the self destruction of the civilisation.
Now, for sure, droughts are not that in frequent an occurrence in the current era, and AGW will change the areas that are affected by droughts. But most of the developed wold won't care because they aren't in the worst areas, and it's mostly poor black people affected.
What will affect the developed world more is peak oil, with the result of their not being enough oil for the population. Or at least not the amount of oil they are used to. That's what's going to cause your near future resource wars. And indeed the Iraq war has been a forerunner of that.
Yes you can, the world is not black and white in the way you are claiming. I'm perfectly capable of accepting the government's authority over currency, but reject their authority over copyright. There's nothing wrong with this, all things must be assessed on their merits and virtues.
And if I come to the opposite conclusion? My action to counterfeit US currency is no worse than your action to pirate MP3s?
Okay, if I say that homeopathy is bunk and you say that I'm making a sweeping generalisation, then does this mean you're saying that homeopathy might not be bunk?
Logic is obviously not your strong point. It's Saturday night, maybe you've been drinking.
Your point is that we should believe scientists because they are right more often than they are wrong?
No. I wasn't making a point, I was pointing out the error in the previous post. Do keep up.
How about, you know, not believing scientists, and looking at the data? If you did that, Richard Feynman would be proud.
If I was a climate scientist I would do exactly that. I don't share the stupidity of those with no specialist knowledge of climatology, who think they can look at a few figures on a partisan blog and then know better than the experts do.
Tell me, if you found a worrying lump on your body, would you go see the doctor for tests, or would you diagnose it yourself? Which would Richard Feynman want you to do?
Deniers like to call themselves sceptics. In reality they're idiots who don't realise how little they know.
Highly doubtful. Coal is dirty. That is the way it is. Start doing emission controls and it will become less efficient than it is.
There already are emission controls. What they are specifically varies from country to country, and perhaps from state to state in the US. Yes coal is dirty. So is petroleum. But power stations can and do pollute less than the ICE, per unit energy. Whether you doubt it or not.
Sure, how about we solve the problem with the world generating not enough electricity first, then add the new burden onto the grid of electric vehicles.
What is it with you and the "do this first, then that". That's not how the world works. Things evolve together. EVs will come on stream over a number of years, and electricity generators will need to make sure they have capacity to meet the demand. Some of it will be green, which is great. Some of it will be nuclear, which has it's own issues, but is not a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Some of it will be fossil fuels, which is less good, but still better than putting the fossil fuels directly into the car.
Having worked in industry I am inclined to believe it. Have you any clue how energy intensive these processes are?
It's not a matter of what you or I believe. The claim was made by the car lobby, and has been debunked.
No, I think there's shades of grey, with the same old deniers stopping at each shade for a while along the way. Then moving on after they find the old shade of grey untenable. As I posted elsewhere:
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan 1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative. 5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 8) ???? 9) Profit.
This [dismissing AGW deniers] is precisely what I'm talking about, this is precisely the problem I'm talking about.
You believe it's a problem. Have you proved it's a problem? Have you proved the problem is significant? Have you proved we caused it? Have you proved there is a net negative to this so called problem? How to you propose to tackle the problem? Is it economically viable? We've seen instances of so called problems that look a bit like this in the past, so what's significant about it this time?
Even better, auto stop/start systems should be made mandatory on all vehicles.
Except EVs of course, that don't need it. EVs are the future. They're not yet ready for most people, but the tipping point when they are a better option for most people than ICE will come.
And move all the smog away to where you run the big dirty radioactive coal generation plants because people are so scared of nuclear energy? Sounds about right...
Per unit of energy, those coal burning power plants are more efficient and less polluting than the internal combustion engines in cars.
So your argument doesn't follow.
Besides, there's already plenty of alternative energy technology options. They just need rolling out. We're a long way from 100% renewable, but every percentage point increase is an improvement, and automatically translates into lower pollution from plug-in EVs that are already on the road.
I read somewhere that the batteries used in these cars have a bigger carbon footprint(to manufacture) than a normal vehicle over its entire lifespan...
No doubt you did. The automobile companies that are slower to get into EVs like to put out disinformation like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it's relevant, but it was "in the company of men".
Thanks, I'm always looking for tips for things to torrent. ;-)
I doubt it, because there are many people who bathe daily who understand that we currently have no replacement for burning fossil fuels to meet our energy needs.
Such people are fucked then, because fossil fuels are finite.
They also tend to smell, they smell of fumes and grease.
And yet mankind's ability to wage war over resources hasn't diminished one bit.
If the doctor tells you that lump on your body means you need a heart transplant, do you trust the doctor, or do you ask for a second opinion?
You go to a doctor, he does a biopsy and tells yo you have cancer, need to do chemotherapy and give up smoking. The chemo is going to make you nauseous for many months and make your hair fall out, and you don't really want to give up smoking so yo go to another doctor with a reputation for saying everything is going to be all right. Your second opinion says everything is going to be all right. Forget the Chemo, and keep on smoking.
Now you have one of each opinion, so you're not sure. And being wealthy you decide to go and get more opinions. 30 more opinions in fact, all of which say you have cancer, need chemo and should stop smoking.
Now what do you do? Self diagnosis? Argue with the one doctor against the 31? Or deal with the cancer you've clearly got?
That's the scale of professional opinion we're talking about with AGW. In the doctor scenario you'd be mad not to take the treatment for chemo.
And yet some people do. Steve Jobs, had money for as many doctors opinions as he wanted. Yet he delayed proper medical treatment for his cancer for 9 months, trying out some alternative therapy diet instead.
People can act stupidly. Deniers of AGW are acting stupidly.
We're not talking about an evolution here we're talking about a major upgrade to a power generation/distribution system. This is not a small thing, no matter how much you tell yourself its an evolution.
Evolution does not imply small. The fact is that you do not built X power stations in anticipation of Y. And only start building Y when all the power stations are in place. They happen together.
There are existing problems which should be higher priority than moving everyone to electric vehicles.
What is it with you and the only doing one thing at a time argument? Many problems are all tackled simultaneously in the real world.
We are reduced to you making counter-claims to mine. I am not motivated enough to correct you by finding citations
Well that's pretty well my position too. You go on to list 3 indisputable facts. And they're not facts at all. To be honest you're boring me with dull and uninformed opinions.
The theory still stands, what was debunked is the theory that peak oil means running out.
Peak oil never meant running out. Right from the coining of the term in the 1950s by Hubbert, it was always about peak of oil production, not the end of oil.
Your information is out of date. Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked.
Nonsense. There's nothing new about shale oil. It's been known about and extracted in small quantities for centuries. It's extremely inefficient to extract. The very fact that the oil industry has begun to turn to that old crap source of oil is a demonstration that we're passing the peak. Shale oil is a source used on the way down the slope, after the peak, when high oil prices make it worthwhile.
Bio-fuels are outside of peak il theory, but are not a solution to it. The amount of vegetable matter that you need to produce the massive amounts of oil that humans use, would take up all the worlds arable land,leaving us nowhere to produce food for the every expanding population.
As the droughts have affected Saskatchewan and US mid-west farmers over the past few years, I fail to see how "it's mostly poor black people affected."
Broaden your fucking horizons. World news doesn't mean the 50 states. Think Africa.
The gist of the article is that a succession of droughts over several years meant that they no longer had enough water to support their population numbers. Which caused resource wars between different city states, resulting in the self destruction of the civilisation.
Now, for sure, droughts are not that in frequent an occurrence in the current era, and AGW will change the areas that are affected by droughts. But most of the developed wold won't care because they aren't in the worst areas, and it's mostly poor black people affected.
What will affect the developed world more is peak oil, with the result of their not being enough oil for the population. Or at least not the amount of oil they are used to. That's what's going to cause your near future resource wars. And indeed the Iraq war has been a forerunner of that.
That's why I said: "From the description given they just need recharging, and the battery management system resetting."
Yes you can, the world is not black and white in the way you are claiming. I'm perfectly capable of accepting the government's authority over currency, but reject their authority over copyright. There's nothing wrong with this, all things must be assessed on their merits and virtues.
And if I come to the opposite conclusion? My action to counterfeit US currency is no worse than your action to pirate MP3s?
Okay, if I say that homeopathy is bunk and you say that I'm making a sweeping generalisation, then does this mean you're saying that homeopathy might not be bunk?
Logic is obviously not your strong point. It's Saturday night, maybe you've been drinking.
The end of big-budget Hollywood movies vs. the crash of the world's economy.
No, only the USA's economy. But the difference in scale doesn't make a difference to the principle.
One of my favorite movies cost under $40,000 to make
What was it?
I'm sorry you don't get satire. Perhaps you're really humourless. Or perhaps it's satirising you.
Your point is that we should believe scientists because they are right more often than they are wrong?
No. I wasn't making a point, I was pointing out the error in the previous post. Do keep up.
How about, you know, not believing scientists, and looking at the data? If you did that, Richard Feynman would be proud.
If I was a climate scientist I would do exactly that. I don't share the stupidity of those with no specialist knowledge of climatology, who think they can look at a few figures on a partisan blog and then know better than the experts do.
Tell me, if you found a worrying lump on your body, would you go see the doctor for tests, or would you diagnose it yourself? Which would Richard Feynman want you to do?
Deniers like to call themselves sceptics. In reality they're idiots who don't realise how little they know.
I don't know what those are.
So I made a sweeping generalisation that didn't apply to you. Hmmm... That's kind of like the one you made about homeopathy and astrology then.
Get it?
Highly doubtful. Coal is dirty. That is the way it is. Start doing emission controls and it will become less efficient than it is.
There already are emission controls. What they are specifically varies from country to country, and perhaps from state to state in the US. Yes coal is dirty. So is petroleum. But power stations can and do pollute less than the ICE, per unit energy. Whether you doubt it or not.
Sure, how about we solve the problem with the world generating not enough electricity first, then add the new burden onto the grid of electric vehicles.
What is it with you and the "do this first, then that". That's not how the world works. Things evolve together. EVs will come on stream over a number of years, and electricity generators will need to make sure they have capacity to meet the demand. Some of it will be green, which is great. Some of it will be nuclear, which has it's own issues, but is not a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Some of it will be fossil fuels, which is less good, but still better than putting the fossil fuels directly into the car.
Having worked in industry I am inclined to believe it. Have you any clue how energy intensive these processes are?
It's not a matter of what you or I believe. The claim was made by the car lobby, and has been debunked.
Some of the things on that list don't even relate to CO2 (healthy children, clean water, air),
Gosh yes, it would be terrible if we had those, when it wasn't necessary to combat CO2 levels.
green jobs are a joke (because they replace 'dirty' jobs, of which there are often more).
And of course people far prefer to do dirty jobs.
Yet you seem to think there is such a dichotomy
No, I think there's shades of grey, with the same old deniers stopping at each shade for a while along the way. Then moving on after they find the old shade of grey untenable. As I posted elsewhere:
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
Whereas you have been made an expert by listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox News.
This [dismissing AGW deniers] is precisely what I'm talking about, this is precisely the problem I'm talking about.
You believe it's a problem. Have you proved it's a problem? Have you proved the problem is significant? Have you proved we caused it? Have you proved there is a net negative to this so called problem? How to you propose to tackle the problem? Is it economically viable? We've seen instances of so called problems that look a bit like this in the past, so what's significant about it this time?
Even better, auto stop/start systems should be made mandatory on all vehicles.
Except EVs of course, that don't need it. EVs are the future. They're not yet ready for most people, but the tipping point when they are a better option for most people than ICE will come.
And move all the smog away to where you run the big dirty radioactive coal generation plants because people are so scared of nuclear energy? Sounds about right...
Per unit of energy, those coal burning power plants are more efficient and less polluting than the internal combustion engines in cars.
So your argument doesn't follow.
Besides, there's already plenty of alternative energy technology options. They just need rolling out. We're a long way from 100% renewable, but every percentage point increase is an improvement, and automatically translates into lower pollution from plug-in EVs that are already on the road.
I read somewhere that the batteries used in these cars have a bigger carbon footprint(to manufacture) than a normal vehicle over its entire lifespan...
No doubt you did. The automobile companies that are slower to get into EVs like to put out disinformation like that.
Not everyone agrees on the need to wash oneself from time to time. I suspect there's a fair degree of overlap.
The global warming believers - when they're not gibbering on about homeopathy and astrology
That's not a reasonable association. AGW is science, homeopathy and astrology are anti-science.
That association only reveals something about you. That you think AGW is for hippies.
Tell me, what's your feelings on 9/11 being an inside job? The moon landings? Roswell?