Good luck getting public support for that thoughTsukiyumi wrote:Plain ol' fission is fine as a stopgap before fusion.
US Climate Debate
Re: US Climate Debate
How many Minbari does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None. They always surrender right before they finish the job and never tell you why.
-Remain Star Trek-
None. They always surrender right before they finish the job and never tell you why.
-Remain Star Trek-
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 21747
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
- Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
Just tell them its a biofuel plant. Or a toy factory; whatever. Most people wouldn't know the difference.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
If only we could harness the apathy and general ignorance of the voting public, we'd never want for energy again.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 21747
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
- Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Re: US Climate Debate
What gets me about such arguments is the all or nothing aspects, why does it have to be that way? So, when does Peak Power Usage occur, daytime, as in when the Sun shines? Whoa, no way, can't use Solar then ! Oh, but what about night, well I guess we use fossil fuels at night.
All it takes is actual use of that thing we generally use for a hat rack.
And then there is the infrastructure argument, "we don't have one in place, therefore we can't do it." Utter drivel, did the original oil barons give up because of no infrastructure? No, they built the necessary infrastructure, created a whole hell of a lot of jobs doing it too.
All it takes is actual use of that thing we generally use for a hat rack.
And then there is the infrastructure argument, "we don't have one in place, therefore we can't do it." Utter drivel, did the original oil barons give up because of no infrastructure? No, they built the necessary infrastructure, created a whole hell of a lot of jobs doing it too.
God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.
.................................................Billy Currington
.................................................Billy Currington
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
I guess folks never heard of batteries?Vic wrote:What gets me about such arguments is the all or nothing aspects, why does it have to be that way? So, when does Peak Power Usage occur, daytime, as in when the Sun shines? Whoa, no way, can't use Solar then ! Oh, but what about night, well I guess we use fossil fuels at night.
All it takes is actual use of that thing we generally use for a hat rack.
And then there is the infrastructure argument, "we don't have one in place, therefore we can't do it." Utter drivel, did the original oil barons give up because of no infrastructure? No, they built the necessary infrastructure, created a whole hell of a lot of jobs doing it too.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: US Climate Debate
Actually you're just wrong. Power usage peaks from approximately 6 to 10 am and 4 to 8 pm. Solar produces its peak output between about 10 am and 4 pm. Early morning and evening as the sun starts to set power production from solar panels drops off sharply. That's part of that 15% CF.Vic wrote:What gets me about such arguments is the all or nothing aspects, why does it have to be that way? So, when does Peak Power Usage occur, daytime, as in when the Sun shines? Whoa, no way, can't use Solar then ! Oh, but what about night, well I guess we use fossil fuels at night.
It's not an argument. Its information. It's an example of how underestimated the true cost of "going green" is. Try and keep up.And then there is the infrastructure argument, "we don't have one in place, therefore we can't do it." Utter drivel, did the original oil barons give up because of no infrastructure? No, they built the necessary infrastructure, created a whole hell of a lot of jobs doing it too.
Cpl Kendall wrote:I guess folks never heard of batteries?
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
We should just totally put a bigass solar station in Sol's orbit and run an extension cord to Earth. Don't bother with any transformers, batteries or anything else, just plug the sucker right into the household grid.
We'll all be firefighters within the month, instant employment!
We'll all be firefighters within the month, instant employment!
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
A rather large majority of those who are experts working in the field say you are flat wrong.Tyyr wrote:Yes, I mis-stated. However it doesn't change the spirit of what I've said. That even if the planet is heating up there's insufficient evidence that humans are the cause to start putting massive sweeping legislation into effect.GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no such thing as a "proven theory" in science.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: US Climate Debate
And I've seen quite a few who wouldn't.GrahamKennedy wrote:A rather large majority of those who are experts working in the field say you are flat wrong.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
Re: US Climate Debate
Okay, since I think I'm the only mod/admin who hasn't weighed in on this subject yet, I'll keep out of it in favour of moderating it without bias.
So, how about both sides present sources from credible, peer-reviewed scientists to back their cases?
So, how about both sides present sources from credible, peer-reviewed scientists to back their cases?
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
Depends on what you mean by "quite a few".Tyyr wrote:And I've seen quite a few who wouldn't.GrahamKennedy wrote:A rather large majority of those who are experts working in the field say you are flat wrong.
This source says that a survey showed 97% of climatologists believe the evidence points to global warming, and 82% believe the evidence shows that it's caused by humans. Since 2007 there hasn't been one single scientific body of national or international standing in the whole world which rejects these conclusions.
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.
Frankly, at this point I think anybody who claims global warming isn't happening is in a place where they are ignoring the evidence because they don't want to believe it.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
- IanKennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6232
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
No you are wrong that has never been a scientific theory. Even the ancient Greeks knew that the earth was round. For example Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth.Tyyr wrote:Most scientists were also once in agreement that the world was flat,
email, ergo spam
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: US Climate Debate
Plus, IIRC, calculated it's diameter to within a few hundred km.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- IanKennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6232
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
- Contact:
Re: US Climate Debate
I wasn't sure it was him, but yes one of them did. Damn accurate for a man with a well and a compass.
email, ergo spam