Upgrade.

[qwertz]

Jeez, i just kept scrolling and scrolling and scrolling...thought it was never gonna end!

I like the civic.
I drive a mercedes vito van and did drive a golf until another car took a dislike to it Im car hunting now, not sure what to get :S

[Lipp]

So whom of the skeptics do you actually agree with?

Just because they disagree with the IPCC findings does not mean that they agree with one another, as they either believe there's no warming, or that the warming is because of solar activity, or that it's because of CO2 changes attributable to volcanic activity, or by global changes in ocean currents, or cosmic rays affecting clouds, or that the cause is unknown, or agree that it's happening but that it's good for us.

It's like saying in politics that you disagree with Obama's policies and then linking a page saying why that includes people that are republicans, democrats, libertarians, communists, fascists and utopia-promoting hippies.

[Doc Durian]

As I mentioned earlier to Indi, the solar argument I find most plausible.

[Lipp]

Alright, seemed a bit curious when you had mentioned that as well as

I agree, at least in part. The emissions are a joke. Volcanoes regularly spew out more emissions than we can as whole.. sometimes many years worth. But I'm for anything which keeps us off the grid and out of gulags. Unfortunately, every action has an equal but opposite reaction.

[Doc Durian]

Lipp, I believe that it's a combination of factors but the majority aren't the driving force. Looking at the solar data leads me to believe that it's the sun which plays the biggest hand in it all.

Do humans contribute? Hell yes, of course they do and airborne pollution has a serious effect on our cities and waterways. But to say that we drive climate change is ludricrous.

It's become the newest emerging industry and governing tool, Climate Change. Far easier to mislead people about the world they live in than come down hard on them with totalitarian human aspects.

It's social engineering and I find it revolting that we as a race are actively helping them tighten the noose.

[IndiReloaded]

You want references and/or data? Look them up yourself. Here's a handy list to start from.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming]List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Plug the names back into Google and follow the links upstream. Keep a notepad handy to scribble on.

The truth is out there, Indi..

I have Doc. Those names represent a minor fraction of the scientific community, and as I said, most of those dissent not b/c they disbelieve the human contribution to climate change, but that the data isn't *yet* clear about the extent. That is not at all the same as saying they think the environmental data is garbage. Its not.

Of course, there are always a few quacks out there who will claim water isn't wet, no matter what the data says. The same type 'scientists' who believe in homeopathy and Intelligent Design.

The IPCC has been criticized for some of their statements and interpretation of the data. In fact, one of the major science news publications this week wrote a pretty scathing editorial on the subject. But what you don't realize is that much of that criticism of the climate change reports, actually comes from well respected scientists who think IPCC have actually underestimated the impact of the warming. This is particularly relevant to issues such as water shortages/distribution and projected species extinctions.

So, make sure you understand what I already said: most of the world's scientists are in agreement about man's contribution to climate change. There are some conscientious dissenters, but except for the quacks their reasons are usually either due to 1. awaiting more data/better statistical analysis, or 2. that the conclusions actually underestimate environment impacts.

Thanks for the wiki link, btw. Since I've contributed to a couple of those myself, I tend to prefer my data come from more direct sources. Like talking to other scientists who actually work in this field, for starters.

[Doc Durian]

I have Doc. Those names represent a minor fraction of the scientific community, and as I said, most of those dissent not b/c they disbelieve the human contribution to climate change, but that the data isn't *yet* clear about the extent. That is not at all the same as saying they think the environmental data is garbage. Its not.

Of course, there are always a few quacks out there who will claim water isn't wet, no matter what the data says. The same type 'scientists' who believe in homeopathy and Intelligent Design.

The IPCC has been criticized for some of their statements and interpretation of the data. In fact, one of the major science news publications this week wrote a pretty scathing editorial on the subject. But what you don't realize is that much of that criticism of the climate change reports, actually comes from well respected scientists who think IPCC have actually underestimated the impact of the warming. This is particularly relevant to issues such as water shortages/distribution and projected species extinctions.

So, make sure you understand what I already said: most of the world's scientists are in agreement about man's contribution to climate change. There are some conscientious dissenters, but except for the quacks their reasons are usually either due to 1. awaiting more data/better statistical analysis, or 2. that the conclusions actually underestimate environment impacts.

Thanks for the wiki link, btw. Since I've contributed to a couple of those myself, I tend to prefer my data come from more direct sources. Like talking to other scientists who actually work in this field, for starters.

That's nice, Indi. Wiki tends not to be a scientific hotbed of information but it does lend itself as a quick jumping off point for the uninitiated. Whether one talks to a scientist or merely listens to one and any debates they might be engaged in matters not.

It's about the information.

Your "most of the scientists" statement doesn't wash. You could say that "most of the outspoken scientists" agree, but that's not indicative of the total number of scientists the world over who agree or disagree. Speaking up against the consensus of outspoken researchers tends to resign most scientists into losing credentials and being isolated at lunch room tables of 1.

I won't comment on the rest of your post aside from pointing out that it's but a small overall fraction of critics from various opinions and is by no means conclusive nor final. But hey, at least you didn't label them a dozen. Your math skills are strong, Sciencewalker

[Cbrider]

Jeez, i just kept scrolling and scrolling and scrolling...thought it was never gonna end!

I like the civic.
I drive a mercedes vito van and did drive a golf until another car took a dislike to it Im car hunting now, not sure what to get :S

VW and Audi are notorious for electrical system problems....its almost guaranteed. You have been warned.

[IndiReloaded]

Your math skills are strong, Sciencewalker

I guarantee they are better than yours. "Doc" My claim to that title isn't honourary.

[Doc Durian]

I guarantee they are better than yours. "Doc" My claim to that title isn't honourary.

That's nice, Indi.

My username was a cock up of Bugs Bunny and a stinky fruit. I'm sure your credentials are marks above cartoons and a fruit. You should be proud of all you've achieved.

[IndiReloaded]

Thanks Doc. I'm actually going to try your stinky fruit on my next visit. As for the argument, I guess time will tell. I'm actually hoping mine will get off this rock some year in the future and opt for an entirely different solution. Ultimately, I think its not just about the data. Human nature is expansionist and self-serving in the present moment. Its naive to want put the genie back in the box when so few people can plan for their own lives, nevermind a problem of macroscopic scale where they have to imagine a future consequence. Even with data beyond doubt, I don't think people would change without actually seeing tangible effects on their lives and comfort. By then its too late.

[Doc Durian]

Thanks Doc. I'm actually going to try your stinky fruit on my next visit. As for the argument, I guess time will tell. I'm actually hoping mine will get off this rock some year in the future and opt for an entirely different solution. Ultimately, I think its not just about the data. Human nature is expansionist and self-serving in the present moment. Its naive to want put the genie back in the box when so few people can plan for their own lives, nevermind a problem of macroscopic scale where they have to imagine a future consequence. Even with data beyond doubt, I don't think people would change without actually seeing tangible effects on their lives and comfort. By then its too late.

Funny should mention the rock... on a sidenote, getting "off this rock" would be an all around great addition to mankinds journey.

But they wouldn't want that genie to leave the bottle without some strong guarantees of territory, possession, and above all....control. It's the flipside of the mighty politicia/VIP bunker except deep space propelled.

Funny how they keep withdrawing from Space and its telescopic mapping.

I doubt we'll ever see a private one way expedition without government sanctioning, representation, and stringent authoritarian measures enacted.

The High Seas set the benchmark for that one.

[IndiReloaded]

Well, since only the rich can afford escape velocity at present, they make the rules anyway. That's always been the model for technology and no change in sight.

Here's my horse:

[url=http://www.spacex.com/]Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - SpaceX[/url]

[Doc Durian]

Well, since only the rich can afford escape velocity at present, they make the rules anyway. That's always been the model for technology and no change in sight.

Here's my horse:

[url=http://www.spacex.com/]Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - SpaceX[/url]

Nice horse...

They mean business.

Looks like the future of ferrying construction materials... beginning Star Trek days.

Although they're still shackled by Authoritarian directives.

I doubt they'll take just any contract... resources or not.

[MVPlaya]

Doc,

Look, I'm sure you're very intelligent on lots of issues. But energy policy is clearly not one of them. You don't have the scientific background or understanding, you have never done research into the economics of the situation, and you just recycle these cheap 'talking points' that are just popular phrases to lob around, but carry absolutely no weight in a deeper discussion. All your responses end eventually with something like this: "the truth is out there" / "why don't you do the research," or "I know, why don't you?" You are never able to back up your argument, you just hide behind some childish phrase.

If you can't defend your argument, don't waste our time with it. If you make a dumb claim and I call you out on it, giving me a stupid stock response like "ask your professor" is only further proof that you can't defend your argument. If you aren't able to debate it with me, clearly you are either completely out of your element or realize your argument was bunk. Because if you did have something intelligent to reply with, you would've.


On China:

Its clear you don't know shit about China. As it happens, I do. Like I said, I studied Economics, and for my honors thesis, I wrotea about China's energy crisis, I even interviewed a Chinese energy minister who came to Berkeley as part of our visiting lecturer series, and I had my paper published. My paper was primarily about coal power, since tar and shale is a newer development and not remotely as important to China's economy as coal. Either way, the stuff you write is off base and just factually wrong. You frequently make dumb arguments on China that don't disprove anything, they just allow you to pretend you said something useful. So I'll start there.

What's to get? I've pointed out a nation who have been consistently improving their processes when the US and other western nations have only recently begun to get back into their formerly turfed shale oil programs. What's truly idiotic is that I must physically make the link for you to get it. Shale oil and tar sands have been traditionally more costly to produce and were much more environmentally abrasive just a couple short decades ago, granted. But they've quickly gained ground and the tech is constantly evolving. They're likely soon to employ microwaves for agitation benefits and that's aside from their recycle programs.

Great job, still several steps behind me. WITH CHINA'S TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN THE FIELDS OF COAL AND SHALE OIL IT IS STILL MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING, EXPENSIVE, AND LESS PRODUCTIVE THAN REGULAR OIL.

Get it? I keep having to repeat this to you. Everything China has done has still caused clean-fired coal, coal liquefaction, coal gasification, internal gasification combined cycles, and shale extraction to lag behind oil extraction not only for technological reasons, which are a part of the mix, but for reasons of practicality. These sources are often more difficult to extract, take greater energy to extract and refine, and are naturally more polluting than regular oil. Thats not just a case of the technology lagging behind a decade or two, thats a case of the differences in the atomic composition of the substances, as well as the geological challenges behind the material.

There is no one earth, Doc. No one, who would claim that Shale and Tar Oil is better or easier to produce than regular oil. Not even BP, the foremost pioneers of the field. They are going into Shale and Tar Oil specifically because they can't get enough regular oil fields to mine.

I didn't ask for your views on China's longstanding indifference to its people. We're talking about the process and the material. Stick with the program, bucko.

Okay, I get you're really stupid and need to be babysat through arguments, so I'll make the argument clearer for you:

1) The statement on human deaths is a logical warrant for my argument that China is desperate. You claim that China is picking these technologies because its just the natural thing to do, I am pointing out that thats false. China would VASTLY prefer to get access to oil than to have to do this themselves, but they are so desperate that they are willing to try anything at this point. For proof, they are willing to partake in an industry that kills 5,000+ people a year. This is not just a case of indifference, if they could avoid deaths they would, its a case of China's decision being based on a desperation we don't share.

2) You cannot separate the human death toll from a discussion of China's energy. China takes shortcuts everywhere. There coal and shale extraction plants lack basic safety standards, underpay their workers, lack structural integrity, are hastily constructed, lack proper work protocols, and work in extremely unsafe conditions. Each of those decisions was to reduce the operating cost of their energy sector and increase the amount they get out for the money they spend. China's advances aren't the simple result of better technology, they are the result of being willing to build easily collapsible plants from cheap materials and take every conceivable safety shortcut. If China used the same safety standards the US or Europe do, their entire energy operation would cease to be profitable.

Get with the program.

Any alternative energy source tapped on a grand scale, in any nation will have similar effects. It's unavoidable. If you put up enough wind or wave turbines, air and ocean currents are altered. If you lay out enough solar cells to power a people or tap geothermal in mass, similarly sized environmental changes occur.

No it wouldn't. This is another stupid claim of yours borne out of complete ignorance and ideologically narrow thought.

It is true that "any alternative energy source tapped on a grand scale, will have some effects," but not that those effects are similar. For example, a hydroelectric dam could completely kill off the waterways and starve out an entire ecosystem, or destroy a valley completely killing all ground based animal life. A coal plant will put out sulfur and CO2 that will kill off trees, pollute waterways, and slowly starve out fish, thus killing off the local ecosystem bit by bit. A nuclear plant could force reappropriation of land with its own pollutive effects, but still have far fewer effects on the ecosystem if waste is contained properly (which is much more manageable with nuclear material since the waste is so much less). A turbine generation system could distort local wind patterns and pose a hazard to avian life, but all around have relatively benign effects compared to nuclear, hydroelectric, or carbon power generation. Solar power doesn't even have to conflict the local eco system, you can put it in the desert.

There are huge differences between the scope and degree of damage from each technology. I know its nice you think you can pull a fast one and conflate them all, but we're not as dumb as you, and we can tell the difference quite easily. So could every person on earth who has ever studied a single bit of energy policy. Don't make stupid arguments like that again. Its not even worth my time responding to, except to point out what an idiot you are.

correction: slightly higher costs which their experience in the process is reducing every year. Of course, it's not a 500,000.00 USD Honda Hybred...That's supposedly green despite the real costs which went into manufacturing it, so it's ok....lol

I'm going to need to see a citation for your claim that Honda Hybrids have a real cost of $500,000 USD, something I think is empirically denied by the fact that they sell their hybrids for $20k and make a profit off them.

The EROI's vary according to quality, extraction technology, and the like. Your 70 USD could easily apply to crude sourced from a less than ideal location or method.

Operant clause of the day. The overwhelming majority of all oil bases will cost less than shale or tar oil. If you are seriously going to argue with me that shale and tar oil is just as cost effective as regular oil you are just a ****ing retard and I don't know why I'm speaking to you. SHALE AND TAR OIL EXTRACTERS DON'T EVEN SAY THAT. NO ONE SAYS THAT. The only person dumb enough to say that is you, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Shale and tar oil is significantly more expensive than regular oil. Under extremely rare circumstances (shale from an ideal sources, compared to oil from a terrible source) will you find a parity in terms of costs and revenue, but in general (97%+ of all circumstances), thats not the case. Your argument only holds weight less than 3% of the time.

Corn?

If you're not capable of explaining what natural resource you're talking about, then its not worth discussing.

and... If you're suggesting that the internal combustion engine has made all the technological leaps it can, that would a very silly statement to make. Worse than "corn!".

Its a statement I've never made. My statement was that the future of other technology is brighter than that of internal combustion. Both will make leaps, but the other technologies already outperform combustion engines on efficiency and they have greater technological changes in the pipeline, better batteries, better power sources, solar paneling, regenerative braking.

I mean, there are still tons of technological improvements we can make to the horse and cart system, but its pretty obvious why we don't waste our time.

Maybe you should explain Econ 101 to OPEC... they don't appear to be listening and never have... but why should they? The US would hate to have it's dollar hedged on 20 dollar barrels at any rate.. it's not like they have much gold or silver behind anything... nor an open ledger.

No nation backs up its currency with gold or silver. And OPEC is clearly listening, their power in the field of oil is dependant on the influence they can exert, as long as the world depends on them for a sizeable part of their energy, they wield influence, if we reduce our energy need, we can provide more of our own needs ourselves, and depend less on OPEC. At that point, they can't force the prices up as far as they want, and they're forced to lower it.

Ask your professor.

He'd probably say its just as stupid. If you can't explain your arguments, don't make them. Don't waste my time with this nonsense.

As has shale and oil sand techs.

WITH the technological advances, they are still significantly worse.

As an adjunct, they're fine. As a broadly encompassing venture, they'd disrupt wind currents, surface and atmospheric temps and render the world worse off.

You know what else disrupts wind currents? Buildings. Skyscrapers. Bridges. Tunnels. Aquaducts. Ocean-liners. Everything. Disruption of wind currents (which are generally in flux anyway) is ubiquitous. You are right that its a cost worth analyzing, but to claim that its a cost worse, or even remotely on par with oil technology is ridiculous.

The second part of your sentence blows my mind: "disrupt wind currents, surface and atmospheric temps and render the world worse off." So global warming doesn't come from CO2 and oil pollution, but you build a windmill and you will change the world's temperature? Is there anything consistent about your arguments, or do you just write them for the sake off, desperate that something might stick?

There is no evidence anywhere on earth that wind turbines have some huge effect on temperatures or that they are worse than oil, tar, or shale. It has its environmental costs, but it is absolutely absurd to claim that it is even 1/10th as damaging as that from carbon power.

The pollution created as a manufacturer by-product would extreme as well.

They use less materials than the infrastructure for oil, tar, or shale extraction. So the pollution created would: 1) not be extreme by any measurement, 2) still be significantly less than what we're currently relying on.

Dude, time and time again, you take these basic arguments that are self-evident to anyone, like:

there is an environmental cost to alternative energy

THEN

without any factual, logical, or intelligent reason behind it, you take that claim to the next level and say that that cost is SUDDENLY just as big, or bigger than that of oil

It is unwarranted, there is no evidence to back up what you say, and it is absurd to even claim.

Do you goddamn research, talking to you is such a waste of time.

On the contrary, I'd love solar cells to make the next big shrink. I spend 6 months of the year living off 2 x 80 watt panels and would welcome a lighter and smaller cargo.

Well there's one thing we can agree on.

Political science is obviously not one of your majors or minors.

As usual, a snide remark and nothing to back it up with. Its important here and I won't let you dodge me.

You made the IDIOTIC statement that the environmental movement is the product of a one-world-esque conspiracy and that corporations are pushing us into it

I then responded that there are a variety of different movements, that they are not one and the same, and that many people never benefit from the environmental movement.

You then never replied and offered a snide comment.

Its proof that you can't defend your original argument. When questioned, you can't answer. Just dodge with snarky asides.

With me, the snideness comes with reasoning. With you, it comes in place of reasoning.

Spent fuel is a ticking time bomb which can't be safely handed down to the next generation without deadly accidents occurring along the way. Intentional or natural.

We're currently handing them different costs which are creating accidents all around the globe. When accidents occur either way, you should measure risk and magnitude. In terms of risk and magnitude nuclear power does less damage, kills fewer people, and has fewer negative side effects than widespread carbon power. Look to France, France derives 74.5% of its power from Nuclear Energy. They've never had an industrial accident, they have much lower emissions, and they do less harm to the environment.

In a risk/magnitude calculus, well-managed nuclear energy is far better than current carbon efforts.