Except for the last John Jay quote, those could just as well apply to Jews, Muslims, or even Hindus. Do you think Christians are the only people that believe in gods?
Yes, it could. Except for the phrase "Christian Nation". Jews, Muslims and Hindus are usually not Christians.
The GP said that the notion that we are "Christian Nation" is "laughable". The John Jay quote used the exact phrase "Christian Nation". John Jay is by definition a founding father. What would he know, right?
Reread the last quote. The one from John Jay. He helped write the Constitution, co-wrote many of The Federalist Papers and was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The quote was from a letter.
Then again, what would he know.
As for what demonination, it doesn't matter. The GP said "the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable." He said "Christian Nation", not "Episcopalian Nation". The quote I used used the exact term "Christian Nation".
He didn't say the founders weren't Christians. He said the founding principles aren't Christian. The founders were smart enough to see how politics corrupts religion and vice versa. They built the government without inserting much if any Biblical principles into it. See anything in the Constitution about coveting wives, worshiping on the 7th day or giving up worldly wealth?
The claims this country is a "Christian" country is very much false. The founders were smart enough to separate their religious beliefs from what they learned through history and philosophy as functional, fair and resilient government.
You are fairly correct. The founders knew that a state religion would be a bad thing. Imagine the turmoil that would have erupted when Kennedy was elected as the first Catholic. Would the state religion change to Catholicism? This is what the Establishment Clause was meant to stop. It was not, however, intended to ban religion from government entirely. A mention of God is not unconstitutional. A cross at a government owned cemetery or national monument is not unconstitutional.
Who would know what is and isn't considered Constitutional. Well, a Supreme Court Justice should know. An author of the Constitution should know. Let's ask someone who was both, John Jay. John Jay was President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States and he co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. I figure he would be an authority:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Now you may or may not agree with him, I'm sure some of the other founders did not, and this quote is certainly not law. But the fact that founding father used the phrase Christian Nation means that is not out of the question to describe this country as such and it is certainly not unconstitutional. It also shows that it is not improper to say that this country has Christian roots in a historical context.
So, your statement that "The claims this country is a "Christian" country is very much false" is false.
Anyone who does 10 minutes of research will find that the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable.
Let's see what five minutes research will find:
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. -Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... -Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. -Declaration of Independence
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aide can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes; and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge." -George Washington, in his first inaugural address, 1789
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men.... I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service. -Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -John Jay October 12, 1816, a Founding Father of the United States, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States
I fail to understand what you find so "laughable". Facts are facts. The fact that you find them funny does not negate their truthfulness.
The next time a southern state wants to secede from the union.... LET THEM!!!!!!!!
Seriously, the country is better off without them.
They take all our tax money and return nothing. They dumb down the rest of the nation, and they are also probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages.
Yeah! Because Detroit is kicking some serious ass right now.
In most countries you do have some freedom from speech. Slander laws etc.
And, no, you cannot impose your unilateral rules on me. You are actually supporting my point.
Thank you for proving my point. You are quick to impose your unilateral rules on others, but when someone tries to do it to you, you get all huffy.
And no, it's not a strawman. If anything it's math. All I did was change "religion" to "speech" and continued to apply your interpretation. Both rights are equally protected by The Bill of Rights so if you can apply your loose interpretation on one, it should apply to the other.
In this particular case, no one is forcing anyone to pray. Anyone present is free to read, stare at the wall, eat or simply get up and leave. Just like when you talk, I don't have to listen. But telling people they are not allowed to pray because someone might get offended is no different than telling someone not to speak because someone might get offended. Since you are a non believer, a prayer is nothing more than words in your eyes anyway. If you were to be completely honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that prayer is nothing more than speech. You telling someone they can not pray in public is telling someone they can not speak in public simply because you do not like what they are saying or who they think they are saying it to.
Methane can be stored in two major ways: 1) high pressure/adsorbed on to a sponge-like material or 2) in cryogenic liquid form.
Err... no. You're confusion methane and hydrogen.
Methane is much easier to store than hydrogen. And storage facilities for methane already exist and would just need to be expanded, compared to hydrogen which requires new technology. Produced methane could be fed almost directly into the already existing and well-established natural gas distribution and storage network.
When the sun dies, all life on Earth will end. The only hope of surviving such an event is to discover a non-Earth non-Sun based energy source and travel to the stars. However, there might not be such an energy source, in which case the human species will end - the only questions are how and when.
It's perhaps typical human thinking to assume we'll be here in 5 billion years time considering "modern" humans have been around for, what, 200,000 of the Earth's already 5 billion year existence? If the sun running out of energy is ever our biggest worry, I think we'll have done pretty well as a species.
The fact that we even know the sun's fate in 5 billion years tells me we've already done pretty well as a species.
And, like you, I believe that we should be able to find a solution at some point over the next 5 billion years considering that we've gone from hand written sheet music to iPads in about a hundred years.
Well, since hippies hate nuclear (because of a very small chance of a meltdown), wind (because it kills birds), hydroelectric (because it interferes with fish), solar (because it's ugly/turtles/godknowswhy), coal (because it's dirty), oil (because it's dirty), gas (because it's dirty), geothermal (because it requires you to dig holes), and even wood (because you have to cut trees and make smoke), why don't we just cut the middle men and burn hippies for power?
Your ideas fascinate me. Where can I sign up for your newsletter?
Actually, I think the goal is not saving the earth, turtles or fishes. I believe that they hate the fact that someone, somewhere is using more than someone else. Actually, it's not even the fact that someone has more than someone else so much as it is the fact that someone has more than they do. If they can drive all of mankind back to caves and trees, we'll all be equal. It doesn't matter if we are all equally impoverished and equally miserable. All that matters is that no one is getting more than they are. I sincerely believe that is the goal.
For Pete's sake, the guy was saying we should stop oil production to force people to use non-existent renewable energy.
Ever hear of geothermal? Solar? Wind? They all exist. And if they were given as much in subsidies as coal, nuclear power, and petroleum they would be producing a lot more energy.
Falcon
Um... no. No they would not. Geothermal, while prevalent in some parts of the world, is not that big of a resource here. And most of the places where geothermal is available are national parks. Could you imagine the uproar if you tried to build a power plant at Yellowstone? Solar is nowhere near efficient enough to power the country. It can be a nice boost, hardly economic, and government subsidies are not enough to help. For starters, government subsidies exist. There are also several tax breaks you can receive for "greening" your home, but it will never be enough to make it cost effective:
He found the cost for an installation ranges from nearly $86,000 to $91,000, while the value of the power produced ranges from $19,000 to $51,000.
I don't know about you, but I don't have an extra $91,000 sitting around to spend on something that will save me $51,000 over the next 20 years. Also, this study fails to consider the sunk costs. In other words, if I were wisely invest that $90 G's instead of blowing it on solar panels, it would grow. Take whatever money it would have made and add that to the loss. I'm not alone here. A very small percentage of Americans have $900.00 to spend, much less $90,000.00. Oh, and then there are cloudy days, night, snow covered roof tops, hail, shadows from when the sun crosses to the other side of your house and so on that make solar an even less economic proposition. Now, if you are talking about massive power plants located in the desert, when then you have other issues. See, you green buddies at the Sierra Club tend to block most of these programs because, even though they could save the earth, they may endanger a turtle that lives in the sand. That pretty much stands for any of these green projects. Someone, somewhere is going to get their feelings hurt. And these someones tend to have lawyers. So, don't bitch at me. Call the Sierra Club! Finally, Wind! Wow! This is a fun one. I'll start with this quote:
Another interesting point with wind systems is that fossil fuel plants normally run on standby to support the wind fluctuations that occur. So, not only do we see only 8 to 10% of a rated power output, but this is offset by the fossil fuel consumed an not delivered to the grid. The net result is that most wind packages deliver less then zero power, when you consider the wasted fuel at the fossil fuel plant.
Of course, as the Kennedys showed us, some people don't like the way they look. You remember Ted Kennedy, right? That big green liberal that BLOCKED wind power because it might disrupt the view from some of his mansions?
So, in to put it more succinctly, renewable energy does not exist, at least not to the point where it can completely replace fossil fuels. While all these other ideas do produce energy and will reduce our fossil fuel dependence for producing electricity, I believe the only viable solution is nuclear. Oh, your green buddies blocked that too! Now the elephant in the room that I've ignored until now is that all the proposals yo
That was no answer, at least for debating or otherwise trying to get someone to change what they believe. Fine if you don't want to persuade others you're right but if so then why speak at all?
Falcon
Sorry, Falc. I miss understood what you were saying. You make a good point. Although, in this case we are really not talking about proving a negative here. GGGP said X (and pulled figures out from his rectum). GGP said Prove it. GP (me) said, Here ya go, proof... sorta (GGGP numbers were way off but the fact remained). And you know what you said and so on.
Now, GGP was pointing out that GGGP was off and should really confirm facts before spouting them off. I didn't get it and looked like an ass. I read your post and thought that you were pointing out that the GGGP pulled the numbers out of his ass and would not be able to prove it. And then... Oh screw it.
To answer your question... when someone makes up their own "Facts" ("someone pulls something out of their ass" as you eloquently put it), you counter with real facts and a respectable source (not your own ass) to back them up... or "flushing" as it is more commonly known.
But as I recall it was the liberal bias of all those GreenPeace types that killed it. So, it looks like liberal bias fucked us before and is coming back for seconds!
Except that ignores reality. Not even China, France, India, or Russia finds nuclear power profitable. Nuclear power appeals to state planners not businesses.
Falcon
Profit, schmoffit. The GP was talking about saving the Earth, not about making money. Seriously, can you put a price on Earth?
OK, sarc off. These people don't grasp the concept of how economies work. To them, it's all pixie dust and unicorn farts and multi billion dollar projects can be paid off with warm emotions and good intentions.
For Pete's sake, the guy was saying we should stop oil production to force people to use non-existent renewable energy. I never occurs to them that in the real world THERE IS NO SUCH THING. If we were to stop all fossil fuel production, he wouldn't be able to log into slashdot to see how his plan worked out. No, really! The guy using what is more than likely a fossil fuel power computer to bitching about using fossil fuels. If he were really concerned and willing to put up with the same hardships he wants to put us all through, he'd turn the fucking thing off and hook up a peddle powered generator to run his machine long enough to make his post, Gilligan's Island style!
I expect you to be a big boy and find your own citation.
And what if there are none? Say for instance someone pulls something out of their ass, how will someone else find a citation supporting it? No, the one who makes a statement has the responsibility to back it up.
Falcon
I don't know who modded you down, but evidently they didn't realize that the GGP had quoted 80 times and the quote I provided listed it as 1/4 that at 20x.
Either way, to answer your question: When pulling figures out of one's ass, it is important to publish those figures somewhere. When dealing with money that is obtained illegally, the process of making the money appear legit is called "laundering". When pulling figures from your ass, the process is of providing self citation called "wiping" and should always be done whenever figures are removed from the rectum. It is also commonly referred to as "making sure the paper work is done".
No.... my point was that you had to search. The guy I was replying to said it with authority without even bothering to provide a reference. Now you've gone and provided him with one and I bet he still hasn't learnt the lesson. Thanks asshat.
And, btw, please provide a reference for the "by about 80 times" claim. Accuracy, it's not too much to ask.
Now, now. If I were an asshat, it would have smacked my head instead of whooshing by. Now that wouldn't make for a very good "whoosh" meme, now would it.
Either way. I get it now. It appears we were both asking the same thing except one of us was not very clear and other got his asshat knocked off by something that went "whoosh" as it flew over.:-)
Any discussion of peak oil always was about switching away to something better. Sorry if the truth has a liberal bias. Killing the earth is not profitable in the long term numbnuts.
Sorry, but there is nothing better. I'm sorry if reality runs counter to you "liberal bias".
Well, OK, there is nuclear. But as I recall it was the liberal bias of all those GreenPeace types that killed it. So, it looks like liberal bias fucked us before and is coming back for seconds!
ya know, I hear this all the time but no-one ever provides a citation. Do you have a citation? (don't go look one up, you said it with such authority, you should have one already).
I don't know if you are trying to be funny or if you are just too lazy or stupid to google it yourself. Either way, I took the liberty of doing it for you. I typed in "Methane greenhouse gas" (no quotes) in the google box and pressed enter. The first link, first paragraph showed me this:
Methane
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources.
From now on, I expect you to be a big boy and find your own citation.
Seriously, if you were trying to be funny, then I guess the joke's on me because I don't get it. I'll be an optimist and hope that a Slash reader and contributer would know better. Allow me to "woosh" myself in the hope that it truly was a joke.
This is why I sympathize with Obama. I know exactly what it's like to have people over-parse and over-analyze your words, when they'd just understand if they had some common sense. For fuck sake, he's making a flowery commencement speech, not policy.
Couldn't agree more. It's impossible to find unbiased news on TV anymore. Whatever happened to accurate coverage, and when did Mainstream media decide to only cover stories that favor their side?
Unbiased news never existed. It's only recently that we have opposing views in media that expose the bias. When all the media is saying the same thing, bias is harder to spot. It gets accepted as truth by default. Since we now have differing views on different channels, we can compare them and the bias becomes obvious.
Getting the same story from different views is a good thing. I've learned that the other side is not evil. They want the same thing I do. They just have a different idea as to how to get there.
I was trying to evoke the rest stops along the New Jersey turnpike. For the record, I do not live in New Jersey.
I was thinking airports as that is the only place I've seen a Cinnabon. Although, that would still be on topic as we are talking about space craft and a space craft refueling station would likely be like an airport.
And don't worry. If I lived in Jersey, I'd actively and preemptively deny it to.
I was going to mention Willie Soon, but found that he had been discredited and would not fit the "reputable" requirement you asked for. However, after further research, I realized that the reason he was no longer considered reputable was because he had spoken out against the "consensus". That's when it hit me. It is impossible to find a credible scientist against AGW because the second they speak out against it, they are no longer considered credible. Which is the point I was trying to make.
As for the fake names on the list, who knows were those came from. Certainly could be fraud on the part of the list maintainers or supporters trying to pad the list with names. It is just as likely, or even more likely that the names were planted there by people trying to discredit the movement. Seeing names like Geri Halliwell would certainly point to someone trying to discredit the petition. Any real scientists names on the list that do not remember signing or actively say that they did not sign would point to an attempt by the list maintainers to pad the list or, again, someone trying to discredit it. There's no way of knowing from where we sit.
Among the first few Google results on "deregulation study" comes this [encyclopedia.com]:
OK, fair enough. I would point out that Canada:-| is a bastion:-\ of right wing:-/ thought and does't really count:-), but I can't even type that without a straight face, even with emoticons! Still, the study you pointed to was not necessarily a study that said, "we should deregulate". It was a study that said, "deregulation worked". Even though not stated, I would certainly hope that some sort of study went into the deregulation in the first place, however, it may or may not have been government funded.
You are correct that there has been various regulation and deregulation throughout history. You found exactly what I asked for, but not necessarily what I was looking for. I should have asked for a scientific research funded by a government grant whose results showed that government should give up power in one aspect or another. I don't know if a government panel study would qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see what five minutes reading will find:
Except for the last John Jay quote, those could just as well apply to Jews, Muslims, or even Hindus. Do you think Christians are the only people that believe in gods?
Yes, it could. Except for the phrase "Christian Nation". Jews, Muslims and Hindus are usually not Christians.
The GP said that the notion that we are "Christian Nation" is "laughable". The John Jay quote used the exact phrase "Christian Nation". John Jay is by definition a founding father. What would he know, right?
Reread the last quote. The one from John Jay. He helped write the Constitution, co-wrote many of The Federalist Papers and was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The quote was from a letter.
Then again, what would he know.
As for what demonination, it doesn't matter. The GP said "the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable." He said "Christian Nation", not "Episcopalian Nation". The quote I used used the exact term "Christian Nation".
Texas wasn't WON, it was TAKEN from the mexicans
Mexico wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the Spanish. (Who had taken it from the Indians.)
The US wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the English.
We can do this all day.
He didn't say the founders weren't Christians. He said the founding principles aren't Christian. The founders were smart enough to see how politics corrupts religion and vice versa. They built the government without inserting much if any Biblical principles into it. See anything in the Constitution about coveting wives, worshiping on the 7th day or giving up worldly wealth?
The claims this country is a "Christian" country is very much false. The founders were smart enough to separate their religious beliefs from what they learned through history and philosophy as functional, fair and resilient government.
You are fairly correct. The founders knew that a state religion would be a bad thing. Imagine the turmoil that would have erupted when Kennedy was elected as the first Catholic. Would the state religion change to Catholicism? This is what the Establishment Clause was meant to stop. It was not, however, intended to ban religion from government entirely. A mention of God is not unconstitutional. A cross at a government owned cemetery or national monument is not unconstitutional.
Who would know what is and isn't considered Constitutional. Well, a Supreme Court Justice should know. An author of the Constitution should know. Let's ask someone who was both, John Jay. John Jay was President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States and he co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. I figure he would be an authority:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Now you may or may not agree with him, I'm sure some of the other founders did not, and this quote is certainly not law. But the fact that founding father used the phrase Christian Nation means that is not out of the question to describe this country as such and it is certainly not unconstitutional. It also shows that it is not improper to say that this country has Christian roots in a historical context.
So, your statement that "The claims this country is a "Christian" country is very much false" is false.
Anyone who does 10 minutes of research will find that the whole notion of the "Cristian Nation" is laughable.
Let's see what five minutes research will find:
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
-Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
-Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-Declaration of Independence
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aide can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes; and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge."
-George Washington, in his first inaugural address, 1789
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. ...
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.
-Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
-John Jay October 12, 1816, a Founding Father of the United States, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States
I fail to understand what you find so "laughable". Facts are facts. The fact that you find them funny does not negate their truthfulness.
Sources:
http://www.house.gov/forbes/prayer/prayerincongress.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay
If I were the POTUS I would offer them back to Mexico. Mind you if I were the Mexican president I'd turn the offer down.
The US did not acquire Texas from Mexico. Texas won its independence from Mexico and then joined the US many years later as an independent nation.
The next time a southern state wants to secede from the union.... LET THEM!!!!!!!!
Seriously, the country is better off without them.
They take all our tax money and return nothing. They dumb down the rest of the nation, and they are also probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages.
Yeah! Because Detroit is kicking some serious ass right now.
lol... you like strawmen?
In most countries you do have some freedom from speech. Slander laws etc.
And, no, you cannot impose your unilateral rules on me. You are actually supporting my point.
Thank you for proving my point. You are quick to impose your unilateral rules on others, but when someone tries to do it to you, you get all huffy.
And no, it's not a strawman. If anything it's math. All I did was change "religion" to "speech" and continued to apply your interpretation. Both rights are equally protected by The Bill of Rights so if you can apply your loose interpretation on one, it should apply to the other.
In this particular case, no one is forcing anyone to pray. Anyone present is free to read, stare at the wall, eat or simply get up and leave. Just like when you talk, I don't have to listen. But telling people they are not allowed to pray because someone might get offended is no different than telling someone not to speak because someone might get offended. Since you are a non believer, a prayer is nothing more than words in your eyes anyway. If you were to be completely honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that prayer is nothing more than speech. You telling someone they can not pray in public is telling someone they can not speak in public simply because you do not like what they are saying or who they think they are saying it to.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
Bullshit! Let's change one word twice and see if it still flies:
Freedom of speech includes freedom from speech
So, if freedom FROM religion means you can stop a group of people from praying, then freedom FROM speech means that I can make you STFU.
So, let's try it out. STFU!
If I see you post here again, that means that you agree with me that freedom of religion does NOT meant freedom FROM religion.
Methane can be stored in two major ways: 1) high pressure/adsorbed on to a sponge-like material or 2) in cryogenic liquid form.
Err ... no. You're confusion methane and hydrogen.
Methane is much easier to store than hydrogen. And storage facilities for methane already exist and would just need to be expanded, compared to hydrogen which requires new technology. Produced methane could be fed almost directly into the already existing and well-established natural gas distribution and storage network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage
You are correct, but I believe the parent was comparing methane to gasoline, not hydrogen.
When the sun dies, all life on Earth will end. The only hope of surviving such an event is to discover a non-Earth non-Sun based energy source and travel to the stars. However, there might not be such an energy source, in which case the human species will end - the only questions are how and when.
It's perhaps typical human thinking to assume we'll be here in 5 billion years time considering "modern" humans have been around for, what, 200,000 of the Earth's already 5 billion year existence? If the sun running out of energy is ever our biggest worry, I think we'll have done pretty well as a species.
The fact that we even know the sun's fate in 5 billion years tells me we've already done pretty well as a species.
And, like you, I believe that we should be able to find a solution at some point over the next 5 billion years considering that we've gone from hand written sheet music to iPads in about a hundred years.
It would have been much better had he actually given a real charity. At least then they could get some pity donations.
Well, since hippies hate nuclear (because of a very small chance of a meltdown), wind (because it kills birds), hydroelectric (because it interferes with fish), solar (because it's ugly/turtles/godknowswhy), coal (because it's dirty), oil (because it's dirty), gas (because it's dirty), geothermal (because it requires you to dig holes), and even wood (because you have to cut trees and make smoke), why don't we just cut the middle men and burn hippies for power?
Your ideas fascinate me. Where can I sign up for your newsletter?
Actually, I think the goal is not saving the earth, turtles or fishes. I believe that they hate the fact that someone, somewhere is using more than someone else. Actually, it's not even the fact that someone has more than someone else so much as it is the fact that someone has more than they do. If they can drive all of mankind back to caves and trees, we'll all be equal. It doesn't matter if we are all equally impoverished and equally miserable. All that matters is that no one is getting more than they are. I sincerely believe that is the goal.
Case in point.
For Pete's sake, the guy was saying we should stop oil production to force people to use non-existent renewable energy.
Ever hear of geothermal? Solar? Wind? They all exist. And if they were given as much in subsidies as coal, nuclear power, and petroleum they would be producing a lot more energy.
Falcon
Um... no. No they would not.
Geothermal, while prevalent in some parts of the world, is not that big of a resource here. And most of the places where geothermal is available are national parks. Could you imagine the uproar if you tried to build a power plant at Yellowstone?
Solar is nowhere near efficient enough to power the country. It can be a nice boost, hardly economic, and government subsidies are not enough to help. For starters, government subsidies exist. There are also several tax breaks you can receive for "greening" your home, but it will never be enough to make it cost effective:
He found the cost for an installation ranges from nearly $86,000 to $91,000, while the value of the power produced ranges from $19,000 to $51,000.
I don't know about you, but I don't have an extra $91,000 sitting around to spend on something that will save me $51,000 over the next 20 years. Also, this study fails to consider the sunk costs. In other words, if I were wisely invest that $90 G's instead of blowing it on solar panels, it would grow. Take whatever money it would have made and add that to the loss. I'm not alone here. A very small percentage of Americans have $900.00 to spend, much less $90,000.00. Oh, and then there are cloudy days, night, snow covered roof tops, hail, shadows from when the sun crosses to the other side of your house and so on that make solar an even less economic proposition.
Now, if you are talking about massive power plants located in the desert, when then you have other issues. See, you green buddies at the Sierra Club tend to block most of these programs because, even though they could save the earth, they may endanger a turtle that lives in the sand. That pretty much stands for any of these green projects. Someone, somewhere is going to get their feelings hurt. And these someones tend to have lawyers. So, don't bitch at me. Call the Sierra Club!
Finally, Wind! Wow! This is a fun one. I'll start with this quote:
Another interesting point with wind systems is that fossil fuel plants normally run on standby to support the wind fluctuations that occur. So, not only do we see only 8 to 10% of a rated power output, but this is offset by the fossil fuel consumed an not delivered to the grid. The net result is that most wind packages deliver less then zero power, when you consider the wasted fuel at the fossil fuel plant.
Of course, as the Kennedys showed us, some people don't like the way they look. You remember Ted Kennedy, right? That big green liberal that BLOCKED wind power because it might disrupt the view from some of his mansions?
So, in to put it more succinctly, renewable energy does not exist, at least not to the point where it can completely replace fossil fuels. While all these other ideas do produce energy and will reduce our fossil fuel dependence for producing electricity, I believe the only viable solution is nuclear. Oh, your green buddies blocked that too!
Now the elephant in the room that I've ignored until now is that all the proposals yo
That was no answer, at least for debating or otherwise trying to get someone to change what they believe. Fine if you don't want to persuade others you're right but if so then why speak at all?
Falcon
Sorry, Falc. I miss understood what you were saying. You make a good point. Although, in this case we are really not talking about proving a negative here. GGGP said X (and pulled figures out from his rectum). GGP said Prove it. GP (me) said, Here ya go, proof... sorta (GGGP numbers were way off but the fact remained). And you know what you said and so on.
Now, GGP was pointing out that GGGP was off and should really confirm facts before spouting them off. I didn't get it and looked like an ass. I read your post and thought that you were pointing out that the GGGP pulled the numbers out of his ass and would not be able to prove it. And then... Oh screw it.
To answer your question... when someone makes up their own "Facts" ("someone pulls something out of their ass" as you eloquently put it), you counter with real facts and a respectable source (not your own ass) to back them up... or "flushing" as it is more commonly known.
But as I recall it was the liberal bias of all those GreenPeace types that killed it. So, it looks like liberal bias fucked us before and is coming back for seconds!
Except that ignores reality. Not even China, France, India, or Russia finds nuclear power profitable. Nuclear power appeals to state planners not businesses.
Falcon
Profit, schmoffit. The GP was talking about saving the Earth, not about making money. Seriously, can you put a price on Earth?
OK, sarc off. These people don't grasp the concept of how economies work. To them, it's all pixie dust and unicorn farts and multi billion dollar projects can be paid off with warm emotions and good intentions.
For Pete's sake, the guy was saying we should stop oil production to force people to use non-existent renewable energy. I never occurs to them that in the real world THERE IS NO SUCH THING. If we were to stop all fossil fuel production, he wouldn't be able to log into slashdot to see how his plan worked out. No, really! The guy using what is more than likely a fossil fuel power computer to bitching about using fossil fuels. If he were really concerned and willing to put up with the same hardships he wants to put us all through, he'd turn the fucking thing off and hook up a peddle powered generator to run his machine long enough to make his post, Gilligan's Island style!
I expect you to be a big boy and find your own citation.
And what if there are none? Say for instance someone pulls something out of their ass, how will someone else find a citation supporting it? No, the one who makes a statement has the responsibility to back it up.
Falcon
I don't know who modded you down, but evidently they didn't realize that the GGP had quoted 80 times and the quote I provided listed it as 1/4 that at 20x.
Either way, to answer your question:
When pulling figures out of one's ass, it is important to publish those figures somewhere. When dealing with money that is obtained illegally, the process of making the money appear legit is called "laundering". When pulling figures from your ass, the process is of providing self citation called "wiping" and should always be done whenever figures are removed from the rectum. It is also commonly referred to as "making sure the paper work is done".
Also, always pick up a turd by the clean end.
No.... my point was that you had to search. The guy I was replying to said it with authority without even bothering to provide a reference. Now you've gone and provided him with one and I bet he still hasn't learnt the lesson. Thanks asshat.
And, btw, please provide a reference for the "by about 80 times" claim. Accuracy, it's not too much to ask.
Now, now. If I were an asshat, it would have smacked my head instead of whooshing by. Now that wouldn't make for a very good "whoosh" meme, now would it.
Either way. I get it now. It appears we were both asking the same thing except one of us was not very clear and other got his asshat knocked off by something that went "whoosh" as it flew over. :-)
Any discussion of peak oil always was about switching away to something better. Sorry if the truth has a liberal bias. Killing the earth is not profitable in the long term numbnuts.
Sorry, but there is nothing better. I'm sorry if reality runs counter to you "liberal bias".
Well, OK, there is nuclear. But as I recall it was the liberal bias of all those GreenPeace types that killed it. So, it looks like liberal bias fucked us before and is coming back for seconds!
ya know, I hear this all the time but no-one ever provides a citation. Do you have a citation? (don't go look one up, you said it with such authority, you should have one already).
I don't know if you are trying to be funny or if you are just too lazy or stupid to google it yourself. Either way, I took the liberty of doing it for you. I typed in "Methane greenhouse gas" (no quotes) in the google box and pressed enter. The first link, first paragraph showed me this:
Methane
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources.
From now on, I expect you to be a big boy and find your own citation.
Seriously, if you were trying to be funny, then I guess the joke's on me because I don't get it. I'll be an optimist and hope that a Slash reader and contributer would know better. Allow me to "woosh" myself in the hope that it truly was a joke.
This is why I sympathize with Obama. I know exactly what it's like to have people over-parse and over-analyze your words, when they'd just understand if they had some common sense. For fuck sake, he's making a flowery commencement speech, not policy.
You must have loved Bush!
Couldn't agree more. It's impossible to find unbiased news on TV anymore. Whatever happened to accurate coverage, and when did Mainstream media decide to only cover stories that favor their side?
Unbiased news never existed. It's only recently that we have opposing views in media that expose the bias. When all the media is saying the same thing, bias is harder to spot. It gets accepted as truth by default. Since we now have differing views on different channels, we can compare them and the bias becomes obvious.
Getting the same story from different views is a good thing. I've learned that the other side is not evil. They want the same thing I do. They just have a different idea as to how to get there.
Its already being done. The black pixel is DED technology, Dark Emitting Diodes.
So that's why all my DED pixels are black!
I was trying to evoke the rest stops along the New Jersey turnpike. For the record, I do not live in New Jersey.
I was thinking airports as that is the only place I've seen a Cinnabon. Although, that would still be on topic as we are talking about space craft and a space craft refueling station would likely be like an airport.
And don't worry. If I lived in Jersey, I'd actively and preemptively deny it to.
I was going to mention Willie Soon, but found that he had been discredited and would not fit the "reputable" requirement you asked for. However, after further research, I realized that the reason he was no longer considered reputable was because he had spoken out against the "consensus". That's when it hit me. It is impossible to find a credible scientist against AGW because the second they speak out against it, they are no longer considered credible. Which is the point I was trying to make.
As for the fake names on the list, who knows were those came from. Certainly could be fraud on the part of the list maintainers or supporters trying to pad the list with names. It is just as likely, or even more likely that the names were planted there by people trying to discredit the movement. Seeing names like Geri Halliwell would certainly point to someone trying to discredit the petition. Any real scientists names on the list that do not remember signing or actively say that they did not sign would point to an attempt by the list maintainers to pad the list or, again, someone trying to discredit it. There's no way of knowing from where we sit.
Among the first few Google results on "deregulation study" comes this [encyclopedia.com]:
OK, fair enough. I would point out that Canada :-| is a bastion :-\ of right wing :-/ thought and does't really count :-), but I can't even type that without a straight face, even with emoticons! Still, the study you pointed to was not necessarily a study that said, "we should deregulate". It was a study that said, "deregulation worked". Even though not stated, I would certainly hope that some sort of study went into the deregulation in the first place, however, it may or may not have been government funded.
You are correct that there has been various regulation and deregulation throughout history. You found exactly what I asked for, but not necessarily what I was looking for. I should have asked for a scientific research funded by a government grant whose results showed that government should give up power in one aspect or another. I don't know if a government panel study would qualify.