Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[josh]

What we do have is the power to adapt to climate change.
As we have always had.

That will be cheaper for people 100 years from now than it would today by eliminating fossil fuels.

False.

Already proven true.   

Proven? Something that will take place in 100 years has been proven true? You build a time machine without telling us?

Adaptation is a persistent and has been for every creature on earth forever.
Despite government mandates and subsidies thrown  at green energy sources fossil fuels grow in production along with CO2 emissions.  It is pretty obvious where people come down  on this issue.
Remember if Tesla reduces fossil fuel need Lithium miners will need more to mine it
And so it goes as it always has. The free market is the choice of the people.

So "proven true" means consistent with your firmly held economic and political beliefs. Got it.

RED is a shill without an original thought in his dome

What is amusing is Red's apparent belief that a dwindling non-renewable resource will continue to get or remain cheaper as we use them up over the next 100 years. Or that consumer demand will somehow create more oil.

That's not his argument at all.

His position is that humanity (and other parts of nature) will adapt to the changing circumstances.

And, yes, there have been and will be extinctions, but "we" (Earth life) will recover, as has happened before.

Do I understand you correctly, Ward?

[facilitatorn]

The wad of iron will go on spinning around the nearest nuclear furnace for quite a while regardless of what is or is not happening on the surface of said wad. In that Red is not wrong.

For cancerous lumps grown on piles of dog shit, or as they like to think of themselves, captains of industry, that is all that really matters.

[LarryBnDC]

What we do have is the power to adapt to climate change.
As we have always had.

That will be cheaper for people 100 years from now than it would today by eliminating fossil fuels.

False.

Already proven true.   

Proven? Something that will take place in 100 years has been proven true? You build a time machine without telling us?

Adaptation is a persistent and has been for every creature on earth forever.
Despite government mandates and subsidies thrown  at green energy sources fossil fuels grow in production along with CO2 emissions.  It is pretty obvious where people come down  on this issue.
Remember if Tesla reduces fossil fuel need Lithium miners will need more to mine it
And so it goes as it always has. The free market is the choice of the people.

So "proven true" means consistent with your firmly held economic and political beliefs. Got it.

RED is a shill without an original thought in his dome

What is amusing is Red's apparent belief that a dwindling non-renewable resource will continue to get or remain cheaper as we use them up over the next 100 years. Or that consumer demand will somehow create more oil.

That is exactly what IS happening. Fracking being notable proof.

No fool.

The money to be made in fracking is in sealing wells...

[REDSTATEWARD]

What we do have is the power to adapt to climate change.
As we have always had.

That will be cheaper for people 100 years from now than it would today by eliminating fossil fuels.

False.

Already proven true.   

Proven? Something that will take place in 100 years has been proven true? You build a time machine without telling us?

Adaptation is a persistent and has been for every creature on earth forever.
Despite government mandates and subsidies thrown  at green energy sources fossil fuels grow in production along with CO2 emissions.  It is pretty obvious where people come down  on this issue.
Remember if Tesla reduces fossil fuel need Lithium miners will need more to mine it
And so it goes as it always has. The free market is the choice of the people.

So "proven true" means consistent with your firmly held economic and political beliefs. Got it.

RED is a shill without an original thought in his dome

What is amusing is Red's apparent belief that a dwindling non-renewable resource will continue to get or remain cheaper as we use them up over the next 100 years. Or that consumer demand will somehow create more oil.

That's not his argument at all.

His position is that humanity (and other parts of nature) will adapt to the changing circumstances.

And, yes, there have been and will be extinctions, but "we" (Earth life) will recover, as has happened before.

Do I understand you correctly, Ward?

So far,  so good.

[facilitatorn]

Red is and will always be a champion of appalling failure.

[LarryBnDC]

Motherfucking Joe Manchin...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/20/billionaire-nelson-peltz-says-he-talks-to-sen-joe-manchin-every-week.html

[facilitatorn]

Manchin has to decide if he serves oligarchs or Americans. He has made it clear he cannot do both.

[kiidcarter8]

Schumer on 1.75 to 1.9 trillion dollar deal:

"We have GOT TO get it done"

Folks - they never thought anything close to 3.5 tril would fly.  They wanted the appearance that they negotiated.  That they gave things back

Heh

[facilitatorn]

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/11/2057534/-Agrovoltaics-Agriculture-Solar-Photovoltaics-Win-For-Everyone

[facilitatorn]

Combined with the other legislation, it will come to just over or just under three trillion depending on who does the math. Combined with the 4-5 trillion private investment it will leverage, it is a decent initial half measure and clears the decks for voting rights protection laws to be enacted nationally.

We will produce the second installment by making Manchin and Sinema no more than the 53rd and 54th most conservative members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate and strengthening the Democratic majority in the house.

[Holly Martins]

Thats not his argument at all.

His position is that humanity (and other parts of nature) will adapt to the changing circumstances.

And, yes, there have been and will be extinctions, but we (Earth life) will recover, as has happened before.

The flaw on that argument, as I pointed out, is that it sets the price of that "adaptation" as lower than the price of greenhouse gases mitigation.  In fact,  it will be far higher.   And he doesnt read the facts I posted,  has zero interest in understanding them or the scenarios examined by IPCC and others.  IOW has no idea what hes talking about.

This really is a dark age,  when scientific expertise is disrespected,  methods not understood,  and yet everyone greedily grasps at the fruits of that science.   

[facilitatorn]

Adaptation is not a bad idea.

Zero out the fossil fuel extraction and processing bank accounts then see what comes along to replace them in an open, competitive, and fair environment. It is probably the quickest and cheapest way to adapt. That carbon burning wealth is just numbers on paper upheld by convention. It is as fictional and ephemeral as any white race.

[Holly Martins]

What is amusing is Red's apparent belief that a dwindling non-renewable resource will continue to get or remain cheaper as we use them up over the next 100 years. Or that consumer demand will somehow create more oil.

While that is not his main argument,  it is his guiding assumption.   Never mind that industry experts always understand that the bottom of a shale deposit or an oil basin is extremely costly to plumb.   When wind,  geo or solar become far cheaper than basin dregs,  there will not be ANY ideology that can pretend oil makes economic sense.  And we are already there with coal:  a gigawatt coal plant,  with fluidized bed combustion and basic pollution controls,  is already more costly,  amortized, than a gigawatt of wind (with storage).   

And I am cured of using contractions!

[Holly Martins]

Adaptation is not a bad idea.

Zero out the fossil fuel extraction and processing bank accounts then see what comes along to replace them in an open, competitive, and fair environment. It is probably the quickest and cheapest way to adapt.

Unfortunately we need some natural gas as a bridge fuel,  if only to build the wind and solar,  and make their metallurgical parts,  to replace it.   With your brand of enthusiasm we could do that in a couple decades.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Thats not his argument at all.

His position is that humanity (and other parts of nature) will adapt to the changing circumstances.

And, yes, there have been and will be extinctions, but we (Earth life) will recover, as has happened before.

The flaw on that argument, as I pointed out, is that it sets the price of that "adaptation" as lower than the price of greenhouse gases mitigation. 

That is stupid, squared.
Climate regulations in abandoning fossil fuels will wreck the economy. Worse  it will lead to deaths of millions who will be thrust into poverty without adequate food or heat.
Adaptations will be minuscule in comparison and humanity will continue to grow and prosper.
Just as it has  over the last fifty plus years after global warming fears were first raised in Washington.