RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomKen -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 1:01:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Nobody knows, and those who claim they do are proven liars.


Wouldn't it be prudent to take steps to ensure we don't find out?



(modedit to trim quotes)



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 2:22:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Wouldn't it be prudent to take steps to ensure we don't find out?


Depends on the economic costs of those steps.


(modedit to trim quotes)



DomKen -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 2:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Depends on the economic costs of those steps.

If they involve the creation of new hi tech industries and technologies?


(modedit to trim quotes)



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 3:12:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


If they involve the creation of new hi tech industries and technologies?


Great. If they are viable industries and technologies they wont need EPA, CARB and the left to mandate them.


(modedit to trim quotes)



DomKen -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 4:25:09 PM)

Recycling is just good common sense. Many metals are already recycled because it is cheaper than making new.

Solar and wind power are constantly available sources of power which scale from residential rooftop installations to large power farms, with the present price of petroleum and natural gas pursuing alternatives makes good economic sense.




popeye1250 -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 4:34:01 PM)

Hey,...I wonder if it was really U.F.O.s that caused Mt. Vesuvious to erupt?
Maybe something like, "just the boys out for a bit of target practice" or something like that! They say that those "grays" can get pretty mean when they get a little 'shine ("ishkava") into them.
"borg,,,,,,,watch- me- take- off- the- top- of- that- mountain."
" xert,,,,,,,-why-do-you-feel-the-need-to-show-the-fuck-off-whenever-you-drink-shine- and-have -the-helm?"
"KA-BOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!"



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 4:35:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Recycling is just good common sense. Many metals are already recycled because it is cheaper than making new.

Solar and wind power are constantly available sources of power which scale from residential rooftop installations to large power farms, with the present price of petroleum and natural gas pursuing alternatives makes good economic sense.





Great. If they are viable industries and technologies they wont need EPA, CARB and the left to mandate them.

Rinse and repeat.

And no, at the present price of petroleum and current state of technology wind and solar do not make good economic sense. If they did then government subsidies and mandates would not be needed.

And what studies/models have been done on the long term climate impact of large scale use of wind and solar? CO2 isnt the only thing that may or may not impact the climate. There is no logical reason to believe that widespread disruption of normal air currents and reflection/absorption of sunlight would have no impact.



DomKen -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 4:45:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Recycling is just good common sense. Many metals are already recycled because it is cheaper than making new.

Solar and wind power are constantly available sources of power which scale from residential rooftop installations to large power farms, with the present price of petroleum and natural gas pursuing alternatives makes good economic sense.





Great. If they are viable industries and technologies they wont need EPA, CARB and the left to mandate them.

Rinse and repeat.

And no, at the present price of petroleum and current state of technology wind and solar do not make good economic sense. If they did then government subsidies and mandates would not be needed.

And what studies/models have been done on the long term climate impact of large scale use of wind and solar? CO2 isnt the only thing that may or may not impact the climate. There is no logical reason to believe that widespread disruption of normal air currents and reflection/absorption of sunlight would have no impact.

Do yu have any idea how disruptive to normal air currents big cities are? How about the sunlight reflected by concrete and absorbed by asphalt? Do try and be a little less absurd.

The EPA is needed to keep companies from polluting. You should be old enough to remember rivers catching on fire or smog alerts in LA.



servantforuse -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 5:59:56 PM)

There is a reason that a $7000.00 tax credit is being given out to entice buyers to buy the $41,000.00 GM Volt. No one would buy it without a government subsidy. If that was a car that people wanted to buy, there would be no subsidy needed..



Hillwilliam -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 6:07:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Recycling is just good common sense. Many metals are already recycled because it is cheaper than making new.

Solar and wind power are constantly available sources of power which scale from residential rooftop installations to large power farms, with the present price of petroleum and natural gas pursuing alternatives makes good economic sense.





Great. If they are viable industries and technologies they wont need EPA, CARB and the left to mandate them.

Rinse and repeat.

And no, at the present price of petroleum and current state of technology wind and solar do not make good economic sense. If they did then government subsidies and mandates would not be needed.

And what studies/models have been done on the long term climate impact of large scale use of wind and solar? CO2 isnt the only thing that may or may not impact the climate. There is no logical reason to believe that widespread disruption of normal air currents and reflection/absorption of sunlight would have no impact.



You are REALLY grasping at straws wilbur. Disruption of air currents? Hell, cut all the trees down and level the mountains, they disrupt air currents.

As for reflection/absorption of sunlight. It would be absorption. You can't generate electricity by reflecting it. Roofs absorb sunlight and just heat up the inside of the building which increases the need for AC. If you absorb some of that in a solar cell, you decrease the need for AC and generate electricity. Solar cells on urban roofs might even decrease the "heat island" effect of cities. win win.

As for petroleum. As I've said numerous times. petroleum is a FINITE resource. It won't run out this year or next or in 20 years but it WILL run out. There are too many things that we do with petroleum that dont include burning it.
Even if we had perfectly clean, limitless energy (say fusion) , if we dont have petroleum, civilization as we know it collapses.
Every barrel we burn brings that time a tiny bit closer.



Rule -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 6:21:36 PM)

FR

I do think that some of the posts in this thread could do with a good bit of quote editing. Do cut out everything that is extraneous to what one wants to respond to. Also divide large quotes into smaller quotes, each containing only that assertion one wants to respond to.

As it is now, I am reading the same texts multiple times and often I have no idea what previous assertion someone is responding to.



pahunkboy -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 6:33:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

There is a reason that a $7000.00 tax credit is being given out to entice buyers to buy the $41,000.00 GM Volt. No one would buy it without a government subsidy. If that was a car that people wanted to buy, there would be no subsidy needed..


Why pay more then some did for a house for a car?



Hillwilliam -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 7:48:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

There is a reason that a $7000.00 tax credit is being given out to entice buyers to buy the $41,000.00 GM Volt. No one would buy it without a government subsidy. If that was a car that people wanted to buy, there would be no subsidy needed..


Why pay more then some did for a house for a car?



If you want it and you can afford it, who cares?



servantforuse -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 7:52:01 PM)

I don't want my tax dollars paying for someone elses car. If you want it buy it with your own money without the tax credit needed to prop up a peice of junk.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 7:56:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I don't want my tax dollars paying for someone elses car. If you want it buy it with your own money without the tax credit needed to prop up a peice of junk.

I'll agree with that. I'm against corporate welfare. Tax incentives to buy somethng are a camoflauged form of corporate welfare. You feed government money in and it ends up eventually in the pocket of a corporation.
I was just answering hunky's ? about why people would buy a car that costs more than some houses cost.



MrRodgers -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/17/2011 9:40:58 PM)

Actually many have argued that when Caesar declared himself Emporer for life and took the Roman army into Rome (broke the unwritten golden rule) that was the beginning of the end of Rome. That precipitated Caesar's assassination and as time when by, power turned on itself.

Soon thereafter it was general against general, Romans against Romans and there you were.

Only the political climate changed Rome.



joether -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/18/2011 3:31:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
And no, at the present price of petroleum and current state of technology wind and solar do not make good economic sense. If they did then government subsidies and mandates would not be needed.


Hey boys and girls, willbeurdaddy is subtly advocating NUCLEAR POWER!

Yes the US Goverment also subsidies plant construction and operation for many nuclear plants. Both those in the works and in operation right now. If the goverment didn't do this, would it make good economic sense?

Likewise, what do we do with those spent nuclear fuel? Toss it in the river or some dump? Course not! Its kept, for the next few thousand years, in a specially designed complexs. These complex requires personnel to be highly trained and motivated to keep in operation regardless of outside political problems. Likewise, it must maintain a sizable security force that would rival any 2nd-world nation. How much do you think one of those complexs cost, willbeurdaddy? Still as cost efficient as solar or wind power? Can you do small nuclear power planets, like with solar or wind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Willbeurdaddy
And what studies/models have been done on the long term climate impact of large scale use of wind and solar? CO2 isnt the only thing that may or may not impact the climate. There is no logical reason to believe that widespread disruption of normal air currents and reflection/absorption of sunlight would have no impact.


If we just gagged and bound all the conservatives up, we wouldn't have any problems with Climate Change. How many conservatives would want Sarah Palin hogtied and gagged?

Seriously, there have been a number of publications over the last generation of years, talking about the very concept you are asking. Over the years, I've seen it in Popular Mechanic, Popular Science, Scientific American, National Geographic, and many non-science oriented newspapers and magazines.

My guess is, you not only didn't bother to look up your question online for answers, but, throwing out total crap to buy yourself time to come up with some 'really good bullshit'. You've been against a mountain of evidence that points out what Climate Change (the scientific theory) attempts to explain as the most likely circumstances effecting the planet. Your not against it, because your a scientist or a skeptic (who understands the science); your against it out of political motivation. Which is to say, you know very little to none, of what your talking about; but hoping none of us catch on to your game.



Moonhead -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/18/2011 6:42:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I don't want my tax dollars paying for someone elses car. If you want it buy it with your own money without the tax credit needed to prop up a peice of junk.

I'll agree with that. I'm against corporate welfare. Tax incentives to buy somethng are a camoflauged form of corporate welfare. You feed government money in and it ends up eventually in the pocket of a corporation.
I was just answering hunky's ? about why people would buy a car that costs more than some houses cost.

To be fair, a Roller or a Bentley both cost a lot more than those silly GM things. People have always been quite happy paying more than a semi would cost for a suitably flash motor.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/18/2011 6:45:36 AM)

I LOVE the folks that say "This proves that there has always been climate change and this proves that CO2 doesnt cause Jack Shit"

That logic is like saying "People have always died and Me pulling that trigger didnt do Jack shit"

Faulty logic that a 6th grader could see thru.



Musicmystery -> RE: Fall of Rome linked to climate change (1/18/2011 7:32:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Recycling is just good common sense. Many metals are already recycled because it is cheaper than making new.

Solar and wind power are constantly available sources of power which scale from residential rooftop installations to large power farms, with the present price of petroleum and natural gas pursuing alternatives makes good economic sense.

Great. If they are viable industries and technologies they wont need EPA, CARB and the left to mandate them.

Rinse and repeat.

I'm sympathetic to this view, but as the petroleum industries ALSO benefited from government subsidies (and still do in the farming arena--fertilizers and pesticides are all petroleum based)...it's not all that simple.
quote:


And no, at the present price of petroleum and current state of technology wind and solar do not make good economic sense. If they did then government subsidies and mandates would not be needed.

Yes and no. Some of these projects predate the subsidy. Some are just happening more quickly.
quote:


And what studies/models have been done on the long term climate impact of large scale use of wind and solar? CO2 isnt the only thing that may or may not impact the climate. There is no logical reason to believe that widespread disruption of normal air currents and reflection/absorption of sunlight would have no impact.

Now you're being ridiculous. A pine tree has more impact--and yes, that's been studied (a 50 ft. pine will effect wind currents 200 ft. above the ground--but it doesn't change the global climate, and there are a LOT of pine trees! Nor are we going to alter the effect of solar energy. You should like PP boy.)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125