Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

by mavie 137 Replies latest social current

• 

  mkr32208

  Yeah well I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on the "no non polluting energy" thing... If the government had spent the money on the Iraq war thusly.

  1. Drop one nuclear weapon on Baghdad
  2. Spend the rest of the money building a solar farm in the desert in Nevada say 250 miles per side. Current estimates are that a solar farm that was 75-100 miles per side would easily meet the needs of the entire US. Screw that, build for the future double or even triple that badboy! Then ALL of the US's energy needs would be met with NO environmental impact (unless your a damn desert lizard and really who cares about that lizard he can live on a pipe just as easily as in a sand dune...)

  Now before everyone gets upset about number one just think if every citizen in Baghdad got blown to Allah that's probably still less than have been killed so far in Bush's war. Also the one's who got blown up were probably whole families so big plus no orphans! Would the rest of the world have been pissed at us and hated us? Yes but they do NOW so whats the diff? Plus it's like a band-aid tear it off quick! By now it would be years in the past most other countries would have gotten over it by now! Also we could be selling them cheap electric so they would REALLLY be getting over it quick! Or they might still be pissed but they would shut up about it at least!

  Another big plus you might actually see some electric "stations" open up making electric cars truly viable so then less oil needed! Those middle east guys could go back to riding camels and fighting each other with blunderbuss!

  Edited- to add #1 was satire, intended to show how GB and company are more devastating to a country than attack with nuclear weapons, if you lack a brain or sense of humor then please don't read my post...
• 

  hillary_step

  mrkr32208,

  You really are a rather stupid person. Do not breed. If you already have, section yourself.

  HS
• 

  5go

  1. Drop one nuclear weapon on baghdad

  This will happen when hell freezes over, but if it should happen the world would suddenly see the USA as the threat it is and unite against it; finally.
• 

  VoidEater

  Possible negative externalities aside...

  Hmm..."possible" negatives...try breathing carbon monoxide. <grin>

  Thats ridiculous. In the early days of the automobile there were several technologies vying for the market. There were electric and steam powered cars. The internal combustion engine running on an oil distillate emerged as the winner-because it was the best. The British Navy switched its fleet from coal to oil despite a domestic dearth of production for the same reasons.

  Methinks things may have changed in the last 150 years or so.

  Why the internal combustion engine won over it's competitors, which were at times faster, quieter? Seems marketing led the effort, and what followed was more development work for the internal combustion engine which provided a variety of benefits (less maintenance, higher reliability, and the like) in that arena. Consumers didn't say, "Hey, look at the thermal capacity of petrol! I pick that one!" It was a much more complex social and business phenomena.

  The British Navy switched to coal for a variety of logistical and handling reasons, with energetic efficiency as an "oh, yeah, that too". If the argument is still "gas is the best because it's so darned efficient", then it falls short. The choice was not so much "Oh, yeah, oil!", it was "Gotta dump coal". At that time there were few alternatives - today there are more alternatives.

  Gasoline is simply not "the best" any more, if it ever was. It is convenient. And it has an ever increasing social and environmental cost.

  Who are you to decide what a consumer needs? It is up to them to decide what is in their economic interest. Consumers want speed, comfort, safety and range.

  It is up to a society to determine what selfish interests cannot be tolerated. Consumerism without a balancing social conscience will eventually be Darwinned out, I would hope. Of course, plain old growing up will sometimes do the trick, too. Have you noticed? Consumers these days seem to actually want less dependence on oil. Kinda why SUV and Magnum V8 sales are in the dumps.

  Why don't we have DDT? Why don't we have Thalidomide? Why don't we have lawn darts? They were all efficient and highly accessible.

  The problem is not the energy source but energy storage. Batteries have have had a very low energy density compared to fossil fuels. This could now change with Lithium Ion and Lithium Iron battery technology. Hydrogen for the same reasons. It is the least dense element and requires crazy pressures to even be a consideration.

  I see a crack in the wall...

  On the contrary, that is the core issue.

  The core issue is survival, public health. I remind you again: coal heating in Great Britain.

  The reason it is entrenched is because it was "the best". It has been the best, because of its convenience. Fill 'er up. Less than 10 minutes later off you go for another 400 miles.

  Another crack..."was". "Has been". Only now, it's "best" due to convenience. I thought we'd end up agreeing.

  Convenience comes and goes, and is constantly changing. This too will pass.

  Believe it or not, I am not "anti-car". I do like to see a thing called what it is, though - gas is convenient. It is convenient more because of marketing and profit motives, and because vested interests have indeed dismantled or sabotaged alternatives. Particularly today, alternatives are ever more viable and preferable.
• 

  mkr32208

  Hillary you jack ass why don't you back up a bit and use your brain?

  If they had nuked Baghdad THOUSANDS less would have died. There would be HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS less orphans and wounded. We probably wouldn't have created an entire generation of future terrorist and turned the entire world against us. If we had dropped a nuke that probably WOULDN'T have happened!!!!

  Should they have REALLY nuked Baghdad? Hell no! It's called satire you ignorant dick. The fact that dropping a nuclear weapon on the largest city in the country would have killed LESS people and probably done LESS long term damage was intended as a blackly humours way to make people THINK! Apparently having a brain made of rock and petrified shit doesn't allow that.

  Here's a clue in the future just don't read my post they are clearly beyond your limited mind.
• 

  hillary_step

  Mrk.....,

  Hillary you jack ass why don't you back up a bit and use your brain? If they had nuked Baghdad THOUSANDS less would have died. There would be HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS less orphans and wounded. We probably wouldn't have created an entire generation of future terrorist and turned the entire world against us. If we had dropped a nuke that probably WOULDN'T have happened!!!! Should they have REALLY nuked Baghdad? Hell no! It's called satire you ignorant dick. The fact that dropping a nuclear weapon on the largest city in the country would have killed LESS people and probably done LESS long term damage was intended as a blackly humours way to make people THINK! Apparently having a brain made of rock and petrified shit doesn't allow that. Here's a clue in the future just don't read my post they are clearly beyond your limited mind.

  You seem to be under the impression that I judged you a bordeline village idiot for posting about the usefulness of dropping nuclear weapons on Baghdad, but the reason that I concluded that you are an ignoramus is due to my having wasted valuable minutes of my life reading some of your other posts today also.

  That you still attempt do defend what you claim is a "satirical" post is clear evidence of that fact that you are are, as I judged, quite dense. You are are stupid, and even more unforgivable you are a bore. Go away. HS PS - Thank you for your charming private mail, all five of them. ;) That you describe me as an "ignorant f****" I will take as a compliment, especially when I consider that its author seems to spend far too much time trying to touch the tip of his nose with his tongue..
• 

  mkr32208

  Wow so clever.

  I'm of the opinion that flame wars should be kept in PM's that's why you received THREE from me, not five. Sorry for the counting problem. I know it's hard to count with those paws instead of the digits that most of us have... Oh well, all that your future siblings can hope for is that maybe the next time your mother is in heat she'll know to run from your father instead of just lying there drunk in that ditch...
• 

  mavie

  This thread has jumped the shark.
• 

  mkr32208

  Soooo your AGAINST solar energy? Seems like thats what most of my post have been about today... Maybe your in the pocket of "big wind?"

  The huge solar farm project that I discribed is in fact in the pipeline (ha ha) I didn't dream that up myself (worst luck maybe I would make a few bills off of it) so roll that up reeeeealllly tight stick it directly where the sun does in fact shine constantly (as you lack the correct anotamical features to wear pants) and fire that f*cker off, ok!?
• 

  mavie

  Mommy!!! He moving across to MY side of the backseat!!! Stop him now!!!
  
  Look at some of the scientists in the latest Senate minority report...
  
  Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia
  
  Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  
  Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
  
  Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
  
  Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.
  
  Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University
  
  Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
  
  Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
  
  Legendary inventor Ray Kurzweil, described as "an inventor whose work in artificial intelligence has dazzled technological sophisticates for four decades"
  
  LOL! Is this for real? "Legendary" in a Senate report?
  
  I prefer to get my climate science from climatologists.