Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

Remember all of those emails that were purported to be evidence of falsifying climate data?

Via Bad Astronomy
It’s not often you can actually say "case closed", but in this case it’s literally true: climatologist Michael Mann has been cleared of all wrongdoing by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation.

Did I say "has been cleared"? I meant has been cleared once again, since there have been several investigations into his research and Dr. Mann has been cleared of all charges every single time (like here and here). All of this stemmed from the "ClimateGate" nonsense of the past couple of years, where leaked emails were taken hugely out of context by the press and climate change deniers, and used to smear scientists. Dr. Mann was at the center of the whole manufactured controversy, being the biggest target of the people who want to deny the Earth is warming up.

This latest, and hopefully last, investigation into Dr. Mann’s research (PDF) again shows he is not guilty of misconduct. A couple of the report conclusions are worth pointing out:

    We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.

That’s clear enough, I think. They also said:

    There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.

A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that’s not scandalous at all; there’s always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn’t a big deal, or else they would’ve been specific. The big point is that the data was not faked.

What does this mean for global warming? A lot of these attacks can be traced back to the famous "hockey stick" diagram, showing how Earth’s temperatures have been increasing rapidly in recent times. This graph is what really clinches the idea of man-made global warming, and so has been the epicenter of the manufactroversy. The fact that Dr. Mann has been cleared again, and that his data are good, shows that this graph is even more solid — or at least is not as weak as so many would lead you to believe.

And what does this mean about "ClimateGate"? That’s clear enough: all the outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air.

Not that this will stop or even slow down the denial machine. Politicians from the Virginia State Attorney General to members of the House of Representatives have been on what I would characterize as witch hunts. Dr. Mann has been vocal in his opposition, and I applaud him. Still, needless to say, the attacks will continue.

Here are the facts: the Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the planet (hence the name) — if they didn’t we’d have an average temperature below the freezing point of water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is dumped into the atmosphere by humans to the tune of 30 billion tons per year, 100 times the amount from volcanoes. And finally, approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans.
I wonder how much attention this vindication will get...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

Certainly not as much as the original allegations. That's how the media seems to work, break big on the allegations, fade into obscurity before the conclusion is reached. Whether purposeful or not it paints a false picture.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6201|Places 'n such
From what I remember the research was at the UEA, it's just round the corner from me.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
Heh, saw this coming months ago.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

"climate change deniers"

So...it's not global cooling or global warming anymore?
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6930|Tampa Bay Florida
I dont understand why people have such a hard time accepting it.  I mean sure Al Gore might be a boring dick or you might hate regulation and the EPA etc. but its the same principle as "there's no such thing as a free lunch".  Whatever you take from the natural world without "paying" something back in exchange for it is going to come back later to haunt you.  The idea that billions and billions of people can just continue to grow and multiply at astronomical rates with no strings attached is absurd.  This doesn't just apply to global warming.

The fear mongering and sensationalism is over the top though (blaming global warming for Katrina was just fucking stupid).  Obviously no one can predict whether it will be just a punch in the gut or a worst case-bullet in the head.  But you dont have to be a scientist to realize that things are not looking good, over the long term.

Last edited by Spearhead (2011-08-27 12:37:59)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England
Thank you for your Malthusian contribution. There's always one.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6930|Tampa Bay Florida

Jay wrote:

Thank you for your Malthusian contribution. There's always one.
You're welcome.  Any reaction to the OP by any chance?

Last edited by Spearhead (2011-08-27 14:40:18)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Thank you for your Malthusian contribution. There's always one.
You're welcome.  Any reaction to the OP by any chance?
I don't really care. The science is fine, I don't have a problem with that. I have a very large problem with the people that use that science in order to push their own world view, particularly the socialists.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
13rin
Member
+977|6719
I'd like to read their report.  And I'd like to see his e-mail.  I think he's full of shit.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

The one thing I don't understand about climate change is the unwillingness to accept it on the grounds that it upsets the status quo - which is what most climate change sceptics do whether they know it or not. Like I get why people are sceptical, I'm sceptical about a few things myself - but what's the worst thing that comes with just accepting it? Humanity becomes less wasteful, we leave a better world for future generations, we become more efficient and more sustainable. Yeah it might cost a little more for some, or it may hirt profits but it gives more opportunities to innovators so there's a reverse effect. Yes we might have to change how we do a few things. So what? The end result is a better world and the fact it fucking takes an 'end of life as we know it' scenario to even get some people to do something is disgusting.

I blame it on the addiction to growth. Our economic model is one based on perpetual growth. A company or a government's success is based on 'how much X has grown'. But the elephant in the room here is that perpetual growth is impossible. It is impossible for things to constantly grow, resources are finite. The second someone raises this they're treated like a heritic. We all know that perpetual growth is impossible, why kid ourselves? Whether global warming is real or not, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is, the 'cure' if you can call it that is ultimately beneficial. Yes it might make a few people and organisations change what they're comfortable with, yes it might be a bit uncomfortable, yes it may threaten the 'growth' model. But like I said, growth won't be possible forever and you're either going to have to plan for sustainability or have it crack you over the head like a sledgehammer when it becomes a necessity.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Ty wrote:

The one thing I don't understand about climate change is the unwillingness to accept it on the grounds that it upsets the status quo - which is what most climate change sceptics do whether they know it or not. Like I get why people are sceptical, I'm sceptical about a few things myself - but what's the worst thing that comes with just accepting it? Humanity becomes less wasteful, we leave a better world for future generations, we become more efficient and more sustainable. Yeah it might cost a little more for some, or it may hirt profits but it gives more opportunities to innovators so there's a reverse effect. Yes we might have to change how we do a few things. So what? The end result is a better world and the fact it fucking takes an 'end of life as we know it' scenario to even get some people to do something is disgusting.

I blame it on the addiction to growth. Our economic model is one based on perpetual growth. A company or a government's success is based on 'how much X has grown'. But the elephant in the room here is that perpetual growth is impossible. It is impossible for things to constantly grow, resources are finite. The second someone raises this they're treated like a heritic. We all know that perpetual growth is impossible, why kid ourselves? Whether global warming is real or not, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is, the 'cure' if you can call it that is ultimately beneficial. Yes it might make a few people and organisations change what they're comfortable with, yes it might be a bit uncomfortable, yes it may threaten the 'growth' model. But like I said, growth won't be possible forever and you're either going to have to plan for sustainability or have it crack you over the head like a sledgehammer when it becomes a necessity.
Malthusian argument #2.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Ty wrote:

It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.

The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that I live in the information age and can benefit from all the technology that we have today. I'm happy that I have weekends off and don't work more than eight hours in a day. It gives me plenty of time off to do things that I actually like doing, like reading books, or spending time with my friends. You know, the lifestyle that was only available to the wealthy during the greenies idyllic time period.

My point is that the population of the planet has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution. Even with an expanding population, we've continuously improved our quality of life. Famine is rare enough that it is notable. Diseases that ravaged the human population have fled into the background. Life is better today than it was before, and it will continue to do so. The only resource that we're running short of is oil. So what? We'll adapt and move forward.

So no, I don't want to change the world, or put artificial caps on the population, or force everyone out into the fields to subsistence farm. If you honestly think that the world we live in is worse than the world we came from, no one is stopping you from buying a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. Just make sure you bring your horses and your blacksmithing tools.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6956

Jay wrote:

Ty wrote:

It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.

The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that I live in the information age and can benefit from all the technology that we have today. I'm happy that I have weekends off and don't work more than eight hours in a day. It gives me plenty of time off to do things that I actually like doing, like reading books, or spending time with my friends. You know, the lifestyle that was only available to the wealthy during the greenies idyllic time period.

My point is that the population of the planet has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution. Even with an expanding population, we've continuously improved our quality of life. Famine is rare enough that it is notable. Diseases that ravaged the human population have fled into the background. Life is better today than it was before, and it will continue to do so. The only resource that we're running short of is oil. So what? We'll adapt and move forward.

So no, I don't want to change the world, or put artificial caps on the population, or force everyone out into the fields to subsistence farm. If you honestly think that the world we live in is worse than the world we came from, no one is stopping you from buying a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. Just make sure you bring your horses and your blacksmithing tools.
Doesn't basic biology dictate that food supply influences population size? Everything should be sorted amirite.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6201|Places 'n such

Jay wrote:

Ty wrote:

It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.

The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that I live in the information age and can benefit from all the technology that we have today. I'm happy that I have weekends off and don't work more than eight hours in a day. It gives me plenty of time off to do things that I actually like doing, like reading books, or spending time with my friends. You know, the lifestyle that was only available to the wealthy during the greenies idyllic time period.

My point is that the population of the planet has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution. Even with an expanding population, we've continuously improved our quality of life. Famine is rare enough that it is notable. Diseases that ravaged the human population have fled into the background. Life is better today than it was before, and it will continue to do so. The only resource that we're running short of is oil. So what? We'll adapt and move forward.

So no, I don't want to change the world, or put artificial caps on the population, or force everyone out into the fields to subsistence farm. If you honestly think that the world we live in is worse than the world we came from, no one is stopping you from buying a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. Just make sure you bring your horses and your blacksmithing tools.
The argument isn't that we should all go back to being serfs and live off the land or starve, it's that progress should be made using cleaner, more efficient products.
All you're doing is recycling the old argument that anyone who promotes green energy is some hippy luddite when the opposite is true.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:

Ty wrote:

It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.

The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that I live in the information age and can benefit from all the technology that we have today. I'm happy that I have weekends off and don't work more than eight hours in a day. It gives me plenty of time off to do things that I actually like doing, like reading books, or spending time with my friends. You know, the lifestyle that was only available to the wealthy during the greenies idyllic time period.

My point is that the population of the planet has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution. Even with an expanding population, we've continuously improved our quality of life. Famine is rare enough that it is notable. Diseases that ravaged the human population have fled into the background. Life is better today than it was before, and it will continue to do so. The only resource that we're running short of is oil. So what? We'll adapt and move forward.

So no, I don't want to change the world, or put artificial caps on the population, or force everyone out into the fields to subsistence farm. If you honestly think that the world we live in is worse than the world we came from, no one is stopping you from buying a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. Just make sure you bring your horses and your blacksmithing tools.
That doesn't really address his argument...

...unless you disagree with the basic proposition, that eternal growth is impossible.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Ty wrote:

It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.

The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that I live in the information age and can benefit from all the technology that we have today. I'm happy that I have weekends off and don't work more than eight hours in a day. It gives me plenty of time off to do things that I actually like doing, like reading books, or spending time with my friends. You know, the lifestyle that was only available to the wealthy during the greenies idyllic time period.

My point is that the population of the planet has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution. Even with an expanding population, we've continuously improved our quality of life. Famine is rare enough that it is notable. Diseases that ravaged the human population have fled into the background. Life is better today than it was before, and it will continue to do so. The only resource that we're running short of is oil. So what? We'll adapt and move forward.

So no, I don't want to change the world, or put artificial caps on the population, or force everyone out into the fields to subsistence farm. If you honestly think that the world we live in is worse than the world we came from, no one is stopping you from buying a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. Just make sure you bring your horses and your blacksmithing tools.
That doesn't really address his argument...

...unless you disagree with the basic proposition, that eternal growth is impossible.
It depends on your definition of growth. I don't view the world in zero-sum terms. Are there natural limits to human growth? Of course. We're stuck on one planet (currently) and thus do not have infinite resources. The problem with the Luddites of the world is that they think we're approaching some hard cap on population or resource usage. We're not. And if we were, the population would limit itself. There are quite a few people in this world, especially among the environmental movement, who view human life as some sort of parasite intent on destroying the planet. Thus, we need to stop breeding, and bring our population down to some more acceptable level. It's absurd.

Growth doesn't necessarily mean building new homes or manufacturing new tv's. In the information age, the developed world has transferred its growth pattern into the service industry i.e. the sharing of information. Do you see a cap on that? I don't.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

Ty wrote:

It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.

The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that I live in the information age and can benefit from all the technology that we have today. I'm happy that I have weekends off and don't work more than eight hours in a day. It gives me plenty of time off to do things that I actually like doing, like reading books, or spending time with my friends. You know, the lifestyle that was only available to the wealthy during the greenies idyllic time period.

My point is that the population of the planet has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution. Even with an expanding population, we've continuously improved our quality of life. Famine is rare enough that it is notable. Diseases that ravaged the human population have fled into the background. Life is better today than it was before, and it will continue to do so. The only resource that we're running short of is oil. So what? We'll adapt and move forward.

So no, I don't want to change the world, or put artificial caps on the population, or force everyone out into the fields to subsistence farm. If you honestly think that the world we live in is worse than the world we came from, no one is stopping you from buying a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. Just make sure you bring your horses and your blacksmithing tools.
The argument isn't that we should all go back to being serfs and live off the land or starve, it's that progress should be made using cleaner, more efficient products.
All you're doing is recycling the old argument that anyone who promotes green energy is some hippy luddite when the opposite is true.
Anyone who currently promotes green energy is a fool. Solar and wind are dead end, expensive technologies. There is a reason we abandoned them at the first opportunity.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6239|...

Ty wrote:

Humanity becomes less wasteful, we leave a better world for future generations, we become more efficient and more sustainable. Yeah it might cost a little more for some, or it may hirt profits but it gives more opportunities to innovators so there's a reverse effect.
Here is where we disagree, especially on the efficiency bit.

That is, if you're thinking of the commonly cited "solutions" to our problems.

Jay wrote:

Anyone who currently promotes green energy is a fool. Solar and wind are dead end, expensive technologies. There is a reason we abandoned them at the first opportunity.
Wind and solar farms are still being planned and made though, the investment in these technologies has been growing steadily over the past decade.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-29 08:25:31)

inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Shocking wrote:

Ty wrote:

Humanity becomes less wasteful, we leave a better world for future generations, we become more efficient and more sustainable. Yeah it might cost a little more for some, or it may hirt profits but it gives more opportunities to innovators so there's a reverse effect.
Here is where we disagree, especially on the efficiency bit.

That is, if you're thinking of the commonly cited "solutions" to our problems.

Jay wrote:

Anyone who currently promotes green energy is a fool. Solar and wind are dead end, expensive technologies. There is a reason we abandoned them at the first opportunity.
Wind and solar farms are still being planned and made though, the investment in these technologies has been growing steadily over the past decade.
Because people are enamored with anything that has a green label on it. It doesn't make it any more logical.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.

The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that I live in the information age and can benefit from all the technology that we have today. I'm happy that I have weekends off and don't work more than eight hours in a day. It gives me plenty of time off to do things that I actually like doing, like reading books, or spending time with my friends. You know, the lifestyle that was only available to the wealthy during the greenies idyllic time period.

My point is that the population of the planet has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution. Even with an expanding population, we've continuously improved our quality of life. Famine is rare enough that it is notable. Diseases that ravaged the human population have fled into the background. Life is better today than it was before, and it will continue to do so. The only resource that we're running short of is oil. So what? We'll adapt and move forward.

So no, I don't want to change the world, or put artificial caps on the population, or force everyone out into the fields to subsistence farm. If you honestly think that the world we live in is worse than the world we came from, no one is stopping you from buying a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. Just make sure you bring your horses and your blacksmithing tools.
That doesn't really address his argument...

...unless you disagree with the basic proposition, that eternal growth is impossible.
It depends on your definition of growth. I don't view the world in zero-sum terms. Are there natural limits to human growth? Of course. We're stuck on one planet (currently) and thus do not have infinite resources. The problem with the Luddites of the world is that they think we're approaching some hard cap on population or resource usage. We're not. And if we were, the population would limit itself. There are quite a few people in this world, especially among the environmental movement, who view human life as some sort of parasite intent on destroying the planet. Thus, we need to stop breeding, and bring our population down to some more acceptable level. It's absurd.

Growth doesn't necessarily mean building new homes or manufacturing new tv's. In the information age, the developed world has transferred its growth pattern into the service industry i.e. the sharing of information. Do you see a cap on that? I don't.
OK, I get your point, but that's still how growth is measured by governments - economic activity etc. Which means how many homes are built, how many TVs are sold etc.

I know this is a terrible response but it's 1:30am, I need to go to sleep.

Last edited by Spark (2011-08-29 08:36:38)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Jay wrote:

Anyone who currently promotes green energy is a fool. Solar and wind are dead end, expensive technologies. There is a reason we abandoned them at the first opportunity.
The cost per watt for solar and wind power is lower than the cost per watt from nuclear power...

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows the costs to be quite low (estimates from the Energy Information Administration):

wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MW·h, coal at $53.10/MW·h and natural gas at $52.50
Costs have dropped massively over the past couple of decades, because of investment in these technologies. Anyone who thinks there is no place for these sorts of technologies is a moron.
13rin
Member
+977|6719
Isn't nukier like 5 to 8 cents/MW·h?

In California, wind turbines apparently are killing eagles and noisy as shit.  Solar is still rather expensive.  I looked into putting some panels on my roof.  Since I'm not staying there till I die and don't get enough sun.... It isn't a viable solution.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Anyone who currently promotes green energy is a fool. Solar and wind are dead end, expensive technologies. There is a reason we abandoned them at the first opportunity.
The cost per watt for solar and wind power is lower than the cost per watt from nuclear power...

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows the costs to be quite low (estimates from the Energy Information Administration):

wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MW·h, coal at $53.10/MW·h and natural gas at $52.50
Costs have dropped massively over the past couple of decades, because of investment in these technologies. Anyone who thinks there is no place for these sorts of technologies is a moron.
https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl1.jpg
https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl2.jpg
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard