Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Filibuster saved.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Filibuster saved. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 12:10:20 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The products those industries made are produced in the low cost countries - which are places like china. Iffy. But you made mention of 4 power plants having to shut down and the 1800 aint went to 1000 yet.

Uh, what products do energy companies produce?

And I read my own links. You should just admit you made a mistake, I will let you off the hook.

In the medium term, CO2 scrubbing technology is the only retrofit option available for capturing CO2
Thus, at an early stage RWE Power made a decision to develop advanced CO2 scrubbing technology;

How does CO2 scrubbing work?
In principle, the basic CO2-scrubbing process is very simple.

Cooperation with BASF and Linde to further develop CO2 scrubbing technology

CO2 scrubbing has been used successfully in the chemical, petroleum, and gas industries for a long time, though under process conditions that – in some instances – differ considerably from those that are relevant for use in power plants.

The use of the jointly developed CO2 scrubbing technology will permit power plants to capture 90% of CO2 of the flue gas and either utilize it to make other products or store it underground.

The pilot CO2 scrubbing plant was built by Linde


ad nauseam.

Now the fact that it has the absorber and desorber as components of the scrubber would make one wonder why you didnt use desorber as the operative word, since that is the end of the process of removing it.........why absorber? What the fuck are advanced engineering disciplines calling a bose-einstein condensor nowadays, if not a refrigerator? but of course it is a freon compressor in common and esoteric parlance, no?

I think it is clearly vermiformous. They are called industry wide scrubbers. They do indeed remove co2.




< Message edited by mnottertail -- 7/17/2013 12:20:50 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 12:29:39 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I don't agree AT ALL that the current appointments were centrist, nor does the track record what has transpired. Nor do I agree that the EPA appointment was centrist. McCarthy is the person making all the rules about CO2 emissions for coal fired power plants - and thats a freaking nightmare. We've already had the announcement of 3 decommisionings (hmm 4 now). And if McCarthy gets to finalize the rules she proposed the estimate is that 1/4 of all power plants in the us will shut in the next 4-5 years.

Regardless of whether you support these policies or not - you can't make the claim that they are centrist. They are quite far to the left.

McCarthy has a long record of being a moderate while also being a top expert on environmental issues. She is an ideal choice for head of the EPA. When here nomination is voted on in the Senate she is expected to get in excess of 60 votes.

Old dirty power plants need to close. Building new efficient plants will reduce CO2 emissions, provide construction jobs and stimulate the development of new technologies.

Maybe you're one these people who hasn't noticed but the climate is warming and we need to at the very least mitigate how fast the temps rise if not actually stop it.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 1:26:35 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



Maybe you're one these people who hasn't noticed but the climate is warming and we need to at the very least mitigate how fast the temps rise if not actually stop it.


And maybe you're one of the ones that hasn't noticed that temperatures haven't been warming for 16 years.
And that your "settled' science didn't predict that.

and if you don't have a working model you can't actually attack the problem.

AND in the final run- if you don't secure an agreement with india and china - all you're doing is shipping jobs overseas and increasing emissions anyway.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/17/2013 1:27:14 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 1:31:41 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Bullshit. Here let me quote you from the CBO report which said that Carbon Sequestration does not work and is likely to NEVER work. The CBO link is in the middle of this article.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/why-carbon-capture-and-storage-will-never-pay-off/534

Essentially, Carbon sequestration damn near doubled the cost of a plant. It damn near doubles the cost of electricity. And it on average reduces the power output of the plant by 40%. It *also* applies additional siting problems.

And this is after the CBO 'levelized' the costs - which means put their finger on the scales in an effort to make the results as favorable as possible for 'green' energy.



quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The products those industries made are produced in the low cost countries - which are places like china. Iffy. But you made mention of 4 power plants having to shut down and the 1800 aint went to 1000 yet.

Uh, what products do energy companies produce?

And I read my own links. You should just admit you made a mistake, I will let you off the hook.

In the medium term, CO2 scrubbing technology is the only retrofit option available for capturing CO2
Thus, at an early stage RWE Power made a decision to develop advanced CO2 scrubbing technology;

How does CO2 scrubbing work?
In principle, the basic CO2-scrubbing process is very simple.

Cooperation with BASF and Linde to further develop CO2 scrubbing technology

CO2 scrubbing has been used successfully in the chemical, petroleum, and gas industries for a long time, though under process conditions that – in some instances – differ considerably from those that are relevant for use in power plants.

The use of the jointly developed CO2 scrubbing technology will permit power plants to capture 90% of CO2 of the flue gas and either utilize it to make other products or store it underground.

The pilot CO2 scrubbing plant was built by Linde


ad nauseam.

Now the fact that it has the absorber and desorber as components of the scrubber would make one wonder why you didnt use desorber as the operative word, since that is the end of the process of removing it.........why absorber? What the fuck are advanced engineering disciplines calling a bose-einstein condensor nowadays, if not a refrigerator? but of course it is a freon compressor in common and esoteric parlance, no?

I think it is clearly vermiformous. They are called industry wide scrubbers. They do indeed remove co2.




Bullshit. Here let me quote you from the CBO report which said that Carbon Sequestration does not work and is likely to NEVER work. The CBO link is in the middle of this article.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/why-carbon-capture-and-storage-will-never-pay-off/534

Essentially, Carbon sequestration damn near doubled the cost of a plant. It damn near doubles the cost of electricity. And it on average reduces the power output of the plant by 40%. It *also* applies additional siting problems.

And this is after the CBO 'levelized' the costs - which means put their finger on the scales in an effort to make the results as favorable as possible for 'green' energy.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/17/2013 1:32:01 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 1:37:08 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Right off the bat, China is in an air pollution crisis now, and they know it. They are beginning to do stuff about it. Even with their enemy neighbors:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/23/national/tokyo-beijing-to-cooperate-over-china-air-pollution-menace/#.UecAD-S1GSo



You know if we got all American about this and went great lengths to clean our shit up, which is the right thing to do, instead of fiddlefucking around with the Kyoto and various and sundry other pollution protocols, there will be damn near every nation on Earth follow our lead, instead of our lameness.

It would become defacto, so that dog don't hunt.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 1:51:36 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Bullshit again. India and China specifically said they are NOT going to follow American lead and dney themselves the advantage of industrialization by signing up for carbon reductions. China has on average one coal fired powerplant going up EACH week.

China has become the larget electrical power generator via carbon and the biggest emitter of CO2 from power generation. And the amounts they are committing to solve pollution isn't enough to keep their air quality stable, let alone improve it.

quote:


Right off the bat, China is in an air pollution crisis now, and they know it. They are beginning to do stuff about it. Even with their enemy neighbors:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/23/national/tokyo-beijing-to-cooperate-over-china-air-pollution-menace/#.UecAD-S1GSo

You know if we got all American about this and went great lengths to clean our shit up, which is the right thing to do, instead of fiddlefucking around with the Kyoto and various and sundry other pollution protocols, there will be damn near every nation on Earth follow our lead, instead of our lameness.

It would become defacto, so that dog don't hunt.




< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/17/2013 1:53:01 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 1:57:56 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:



You know if we got all American about this and went great lengths to clean our shit up, which is the right thing to do, instead of fiddlefucking around with the Kyoto and various and sundry other pollution protocols, there will be damn near every nation on Earth follow our lead, instead of our lameness.

It would become defacto, so that dog don't hunt.


Its nice when you can just invent brand new technologies with a wave of your hand. Go fucking educate yourself. Every single nation that has spent any significant money into developing alternate energy sources is backpedalling - except the US. Germany. Britain. Denmark. Brazil. Spain.

Europe thought (just like you do) that the reason America wasn't pursing alternate energy was because of special interest groups. But the bottom line is that these technologies are not cost effective.

Even if you could get *everyone* on board on not using coal - it would still be a bad idea - just as moving over 100% to wind power is a TERRIBLE idea.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 2:09:17 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Backing up a little bit about what I was saying about shipping jobs to china increasing emissions:

Since you won't accept a heritage report, bucko, here's one from the netherlands.

Per unit of GDP, china has FOUR times the emissions of the United States. And its getting worse.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 2:13:28 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		In addition to ruling out retrofits, which are generally deemed to be cost-prohibitive, the CBO report focused exclusively on the post-combustion approach, “because that technology is the only one that is compatible with the most commonly used designs for electricity-generating plants.”

So bullshit on the CBO and bullshit on the China said, where is that horseshit from cuz I see no credible citations of any of this shit, including the CBO.

The opinion was that it would be 75% higher thru the lifetime of plants.

but the cbo said:

Engineers have estimated that, on average, electricity
generated by the first CCS-equipped commercial-scale
plants would initially be about 75 percent more costly
than electricity generated by conventional coal-fired
plants. (Most of that additional cost is attributable to
the extra facilities and energy that would be needed to
capture the CO2
.) That initial cost differential would
probably shrink, however, as the technology became
more widely applied and equipment manufacturers and
construction companies became more familiar with it—
a pattern of cost reduction called learning-by-doing.

Well, it goes on to say that there needs to be more breakthroughs and research in these areas. It also talks about coal gassification and capuring pre instead of post and on and on.

It does not at all say that it is impossible as the opinion article says. Read the actual report.

Again, from starting with an advanced engineering discipline degree, you sure aint showing no discipline, you find opinion articles that dont quite accurately interpret what the studies they are based on say.

And that latest data looked like, even though the report was 2012 latest at 2007. And that is based on 450 ppm, not the 1000 step we are talking.

You need to be numerate, as well as cognizant to be coherent, and you are substandard right now. Read your own fuckin article. Then read the report.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 2:25:04 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Again, you reveal your own illiteracy.

1. 74% increase in the cost of the electricity is almost double. Like I said. And we know the actual cost will be more since the government underestimated the costs. That 74% also neglects the additional capital costs required due to the 40% reduction in power generation that CCS causes. In other words 5 existing plants would need to be replaced with 8+ CCS plants.

2. If you knew anything about the field, which clearly you did not, you would see that the estimate to start achieving cost break throughs is $200 billion dollars in CCS.

3 No private company will do that since natural gas or nuclear plants are cheaper.

4. Even if a company was going to do carbon sequestration, it would be done with natural gas plants (at least in the US).

So, going back to my original statement, which was true then, and is still true. This bill is designed to drive carbon power plants out of business and to increase the cost of electricity dramatically. Its the only way to make 'green' energy to work - and it won't work because what it will do is push jobs out of the US.

It does nothing but reveal the rank amateurness of the obama administration at governance.

5. What the hell are you talking about 450 ppm vs 1000 step? Thats comparing apples to the number of pimples on your ass.





quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

In addition to ruling out retrofits, which are generally deemed to be cost-prohibitive, the CBO report focused exclusively on the post-combustion approach, “because that technology is the only one that is compatible with the most commonly used designs for electricity-generating plants.”

So bullshit on the CBO and bullshit on the China said, where is that horseshit from cuz I see no credible citations of any of this shit, including the CBO.

The opinion was that it would be 75% higher thru the lifetime of plants.

but the cbo said:

Engineers have estimated that, on average, electricity
generated by the first CCS-equipped commercial-scale
plants would initially be about 75 percent more costly
than electricity generated by conventional coal-fired
plants. (Most of that additional cost is attributable to
the extra facilities and energy that would be needed to
capture the CO2
.) That initial cost differential would
probably shrink, however, as the technology became
more widely applied and equipment manufacturers and
construction companies became more familiar with it—
a pattern of cost reduction called learning-by-doing.

Well, it goes on to say that there needs to be more breakthroughs and research in these areas. It also talks about coal gassification and capuring pre instead of post and on and on.

It does not at all say that it is impossible as the opinion article says. Read the actual report.

Again, from starting with an advanced engineering discipline degree, you sure aint showing no discipline, you find opinion articles that dont quite accurately interpret what the studies they are based on say.

And that latest data looked like, even though the report was 2012 latest at 2007. And that is based on 450 ppm, not the 1000 step we are talking.

You need to be numerate, as well as cognizant to be coherent, and you are substandard right now. Read your own fuckin article. Then read the report.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/17/2013 2:27:13 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 2:30:11 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Backing up a little bit about what I was saying about shipping jobs to china increasing emissions:

Since you won't accept a heritage report, bucko, here's one from the netherlands.

Per unit of GDP, china has FOUR times the emissions of the United States. And its getting worse.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf





Yes, because theirs is their own GDP. Our GDP is based on imports to a great degree.

Nobody is arguing the strawman but you that china isnt increasing their pollution, but they are aware of it and figuring out what to do about it.




_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 2:38:46 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Wrong again.

China's air pollution is worsening, not getting better. And again - same report. Or, go look at the US govt report - the chinese are spending no where near what they need to spend to clean up their air.

but a line or two from the heritage report says it best. Paraphrasing

Chinese expenditures on clean energy are focused on the export market. In other words - china is building solar cells for export, not domestic consumption in the main.

You, my man, have had your clock cleaned on every front in this debate. But its because the facts about the costs of green energy are not allowed into left news sources.






quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Backing up a little bit about what I was saying about shipping jobs to china increasing emissions:

Since you won't accept a heritage report, bucko, here's one from the netherlands.

Per unit of GDP, china has FOUR times the emissions of the United States. And its getting worse.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf





Yes, because theirs is their own GDP. Our GDP is based on imports to a great degree.

Nobody is arguing the strawman but you that china isnt increasing their pollution, but they are aware of it and figuring out what to do about it.




(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 2:50:49 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, you reveal your own illiteracy.

1. 74% increase in the cost of the electricity is almost double.


I cannot fathom your innumeracy. Tell you what, you give me a dollar, and I will give you a seventy five cents and you can double your money.

Now as for the rest of it.

3 No private company will do that since natural gas or nuclear plants are cheaper.

TA DA!!! and the ppm of co2 by natural gas or nuke is (without ccs) ppm please, and then we work on that. lets see

(c(1800) + A(g)) /2 = 1000.

5. What the hell are you talking about 450 ppm vs 1000 step? Thats comparing apples to the number of pimples on your ass.


Your article and the cbo is based on 450 and not the 1000 from your first capitulist asswipery that I understand is the goal.

Under the rule, which some say could play a major role in Obama's climate strategy, no new power plant could emit more than 1,000lb CO2/MWh

Yeah, I said ppm I have mistakenly said that in the quick typing and heat of the exchange.

your cbo report and site opinion is based on 450


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 3:49:04 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Innumeracy --- 175% is almost double. So is 150% so is 125% but, nevertheless comparing apples to oranges are based on differing things, you at least got that correct.

so, the reports you are quoting have to be normalized to compare the 450ppm to the 1000 lb and we will wait for the math, because that will change numbers all over. That will invalidate many of the hallucinogenic arguments. You still aint caught on to that and then call me a moron, you might want to check that sort of shiteating style of speech at the door when clearly you are not numerate or cogent accordingly you compare apples to oranges. Because you are quoting shit about 450ppm based scrubbing and not #pKwh scrubbing. Sequestration, as has been pointed out has been going on a long time. To ramp it up costs more if you are going from 0 to 100%.

has fuckall to do with the cost of flue gas carbon sequestration from fossil fuel power plant. and that is one of the many ccs options that are available. And again that is the old style fossil fuel power plant. I guess we don't create or cogitate much in this country any more, and you are the codex right there by your own reasoning, now I guess that a redesign and research and policy changes and technological advancement is beyond most of the plebian types.

Nevertheless, from 1 area of focus on some pretty draconian assumptions your site said not quite what the cbo said under the draconion assumptions, perhaps if we took away oil and coal welfare and some bonuses for the execs we could bring some research and development around. And if we cannot innovate in coal it will go to nuke and gas, and who gives the glimmer of a fuck, it aint like we are gonna pay out for black lung disease in any case.


I hold great contempt for those who won't wipe their ass after they take a shit, saying it cost to much or it will just get dirty again.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 4:04:58 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



Maybe you're one these people who hasn't noticed but the climate is warming and we need to at the very least mitigate how fast the temps rise if not actually stop it.


And maybe you're one of the ones that hasn't noticed that temperatures haven't been warming for 16 years.
And that your "settled' science didn't predict that.

and if you don't have a working model you can't actually attack the problem.

AND in the final run- if you don't secure an agreement with india and china - all you're doing is shipping jobs overseas and increasing emissions anyway.

Wrong. you believed some climate denial nonsense. The last 15 years include at least 12 of the hottest years on record, depending on which measure you take.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/
http://www.voanews.com/content/the-year-2012-was-9th-hottest-year-on-record/1585020.html

We know what is causing the warming, human released CO2.

As to your crazy belief that forcing American companies to innovate will result in them shipping jobs overseas, how precisely would an energy company go overseas and still sell power in the US? Anyway in the real world the necessary innovations are already occurring. Alternative energy cost per watt is falling steeply and the fossil fuel industry is finding ways to release less CO2.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 4:17:51 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Again. You know jack shit about carbon sequestration.

Power plant figures of tones/MW have *nothing* to do ppm. State of the art carbon power plants get about 1000t/Mw without sequestration. State of the art powerplants have exit gases that are, roughly, 68% CO2, 12% CO, and the bulk of the remainder other atmospheric gases, much of it nitrogen.

That means that 800,000 parts per million of an exit gas are carbon. And you're worried about a change of 100 caused by atmosheric CO2? That doesnt' even register on *any* study.

I have been quoting tonnes/MW hour, moron, which is the same as #/kwH just scaled differently. Again... C-A-T.

And yes.. the redesign of a fossil fuel plant *is* beyond your skills. People go to university for that. C-A-T

And yes, sure, sequestration has been widely used in the development of certain products. Where it is exspensive as fuck. C-A-T.
It isn't a question (again) of the technology being available. Its is AS I SAID in the original post - that it makes carbon power more expensive than natural gas, nuclear or solar. C-A-T

And the effect of the legislation will be to increase the cost of electricity production.

Yeah.. the CBO makes *draconian* assumptions. Yeah. Right. C-A-T

Lets debunk some more myths shall we.. Like Oil companies and welfare: Fossil fuel companies on average pay more in taxes than they make in profit.
Think about that.. that means on average at the very best, companies will earn 49% and pay 51%. Or that 51 % of net proceeds will go to the government.

Thats a higher tax rate than any individual tax. Now I am aware that this is an approximate figure. Because I'm just making a short hand argument. If you want to open up another topic where you will get your clock absolutely cleaned - feel free.





quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Innumeracy --- 175% is almost double. So is 150% so is 125% but, nevertheless comparing apples to oranges are based on differing things, you at least got that correct.

so, the reports you are quoting have to be normalized to compare the 450ppm to the 1000 lb and we will wait for the math, because that will change numbers all over. That will invalidate many of the hallucinogenic arguments. You still aint caught on to that and then call me a moron, you might want to check that sort of shiteating style of speech at the door when clearly you are not numerate or cogent accordingly you compare apples to oranges. Because you are quoting shit about 450ppm based scrubbing and not #pKwh scrubbing. Sequestration, as has been pointed out has been going on a long time. To ramp it up costs more if you are going from 0 to 100%.

has fuckall to do with the cost of flue gas carbon sequestration from fossil fuel power plant. and that is one of the many ccs options that are available. And again that is the old style fossil fuel power plant. I guess we don't create or cogitate much in this country any more, and you are the codex right there by your own reasoning, now I guess that a redesign and research and policy changes and technological advancement is beyond most of the plebian types.

Nevertheless, from 1 area of focus on some pretty draconian assumptions your site said not quite what the cbo said under the draconion assumptions, perhaps if we took away oil and coal welfare and some bonuses for the execs we could bring some research and development around. And if we cannot innovate in coal it will go to nuke and gas, and who gives the glimmer of a fuck, it aint like we are gonna pay out for black lung disease in any case.


I hold great contempt for those who won't wipe their ass after they take a shit, saying it cost to much or it will just get dirty again.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 4:33:50 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Bullshit.

The very Climate Research Unit that is at the center of the global warming studies confirmed it. Here's a link, asswipe: http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16-year-pause-in-global-warming

The head of Ga Tech Climate Study: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Here's the NY times admitting they don't know what is causing the lull in global warming.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

Or Nasa: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

And you may not have heard but Jones (you know the prophet of global warming) has already admitted their models don't explain it and its a crying shame. (emphasis his).

So I repeat. You have neglible warming over the last 15 years, and models that don't work.

And for fuck all again. I never said that american companies would ship power into the united states. I'll say it very very slowly.

I said - that just like was proved in the largest study ever conducted (in spain) or has been documented in the EU as a whole:

1. Raising the costs of electricity by way of clean energy mandates makes industries uncompetitive on the global stage.
2. Uncompetitiveness leads to those industries shutting and those products being made overseas in the low cost producers.
3. Since china's/ india power consumption per GDP is 4 times what it is in the US this means that losing these jobs INCREASES carbon emissions - even on a 1:1 comparison, ignoring factors like shipping and distribution.








quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



Maybe you're one these people who hasn't noticed but the climate is warming and we need to at the very least mitigate how fast the temps rise if not actually stop it.


And maybe you're one of the ones that hasn't noticed that temperatures haven't been warming for 16 years.
And that your "settled' science didn't predict that.

and if you don't have a working model you can't actually attack the problem.

AND in the final run- if you don't secure an agreement with india and china - all you're doing is shipping jobs overseas and increasing emissions anyway.

Wrong. you believed some climate denial nonsense. The last 15 years include at least 12 of the hottest years on record, depending on which measure you take.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/
http://www.voanews.com/content/the-year-2012-was-9th-hottest-year-on-record/1585020.html

We know what is causing the warming, human released CO2.

As to your crazy belief that forcing American companies to innovate will result in them shipping jobs overseas, how precisely would an energy company go overseas and still sell power in the US? Anyway in the real world the necessary innovations are already occurring. Alternative energy cost per watt is falling steeply and the fossil fuel industry is finding ways to release less CO2.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/17/2013 4:57:17 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 4:53:14 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
<crazy shit deleted>

I gave you multiple sources. I could not follow your links to actual sources. Next time try and use non denial sites.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 4:57:53 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		LOL.. NY times not good enough for ya, eh?


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Filibuster saved. - 7/17/2013 6:25:43 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

LOL.. NY times not good enough for ya, eh?



It isn't when the article doesn't link to actual data.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Filibuster saved. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.125