More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

gnarlylove gets pwned >>>>

European Commission Move Away from Climate Protection Goals - SPIEGEL ONLINE



facts > speculation



The skeptics are decimating the greens in 2014!!! Not even debatable anymore.




= the science isn't mattering for shit!!! Also not debatable!!! ( unless you're a k00k )

 

[skookerasbil]

Brilliant graph find.......the whole CO2 thing is such fucked up bogusness and these cheesedicks know it too.

 

[gnarlylove]

I noted I was using kooks method of posting pictures and then saying biased slogans. I said it was not intended to be a rigorous post.

Show me where I called geothermal a favorite.

I merely noted that renewables will be required in the future. Like all things in reality, you can come up with a flaw. The problem is do those flaws outweigh the benefits?

You're method of "geothermal is bad" doesn't make fossil fuels better. Fossil fuels still have their faults whether geothermal is "MASSIVELY MORE polluting." That's like saying "two wrongs make a right" which is yet another logical fallacy.

It simply means, like I've continually said, we need to improve and encourage renewable methods while weening off undeniably faulty fossil fuels that cause much more ethical and environmental issues than renewables. Like I said, show me a case history of the renewables gone wrong...it will be much shorter than our long history of coal and oil.

 

[skookerasbil]

I noted I was using kooks method of posting pictures and then saying biased slogans. I said it was not intended to be a rigorous post.

Show me where I called geothermal a favorite.

I merely noted that renewables will be required in the future. Like all things in reality, you can come up with a flaw. The problem is do those flaws outweigh the benefits?

You're method of "geothermal is bad" doesn't make fossil fuels better. Fossil fuels still have their faults whether geothermal is "MASSIVELY MORE polluting." That's like saying "two wrongs make a right" which is yet another logical fallacy.

It simply means, like I've continually said, we need to improve and encourage renewable methods while weening off undeniably faulty fossil fuels that cause much more ethical and environmental issues than renewables. Like I said, show me a case history of the renewables gone wrong...it will be much shorter than our long history of coal and oil.

Will......not......happen........until the government gets out of the way and stops subsidizing the ridiculous gayness of solar and wind = ancient technology. But as weve seen, subsidizing this crap is not ending anytime soon because this special interest is in deep in Washington and isn't going anywhere........

Which is why the Obama EIA put out THIS graph just a few months ago >>>>







What do the non-gullible non-matrix affiliated realize that most don't? That the fix is in and we will see the fuckedupedness of current renewables continue for decades. Follow the $$$$$$$$$ s0ns ftmfw


All renewable subsidies should NOW go to improving solar storage via nano-technology.....but sadly, it wont happen. Some fabulous technology is there......but the special interests need to keep their pockets lined.

PS........they don't give a flying **** about the environment!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Has anybody noticed that Old Rocks does not post in this thread?


He does not because, as he has stated within this forum, he recognizes that special interests on both the right and left dominate the domestic energy scene.


Accordingly......... more PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING.


Until the dynamic changes, the science wont matter = 100% certainty ( proven with dozens of links within this thread AND why the thread has 4 billion hits )

 

[gnarlylove]

kook, do you think fossil fuels (oil, coal, methane) are unlimited and infinite?

 

[gnarlylove]

i agree with you kooks, there is so much special interest going on that government cannot perform its basic duty: to represent the public.

Hence we see orgs. like NRA succeed in defeating public majority in a recall election. John Morse and Angela Giron were ousted last winter over the fact they supported gun laws. Polling in the state reveals the public supported it by a majority (60%) But those senators were ousted because NRA ran a big campaign to get their supporters to vote. The rest of Coloradoans didn't think it worth going to the polls to vote and it turns out they were wrong. That special interest group obviously fudged a political election but somehow it is still above the board. We can see what went wrong but can do nothing about it. Sad system we live in where the majority must bow before those with power, rather than the way the Constitution intended: power from the people up the ranks.

 

[flacaltenn]

I noted I was using kooks method of posting pictures and then saying biased slogans. I said it was not intended to be a rigorous post.

Show me where I called geothermal a favorite.

I merely noted that renewables will be required in the future. Like all things in reality, you can come up with a flaw. The problem is do those flaws outweigh the benefits?

You're method of "geothermal is bad" doesn't make fossil fuels better. Fossil fuels still have their faults whether geothermal is "MASSIVELY MORE polluting." That's like saying "two wrongs make a right" which is yet another logical fallacy.

It simply means, like I've continually said, we need to improve and encourage renewable methods while weening off undeniably faulty fossil fuels that cause much more ethical and environmental issues than renewables. Like I said, show me a case history of the renewables gone wrong...it will be much shorter than our long history of coal and oil.

You still have geothermal on your list of "Clean Green Renewables" even tho it's a dirty mining operation.. It's OPPOSED locally and by many enviro orgs BECAUSE it's been known to "blow-out" deadly clouds of gases and pollute local water. I could show you the episodes. Look up ----- geothermal drilling "rain forest" Hawaii ----- on Google for instance.

You just said you didn't advocate building solar thermal towers. I actually DO advocate it. Because it not the BEGINNING of the era of renewables. It's the PUT UP or SHUT UP phase for that list of alternatives that aren't alternatives.

There is a public policy danger of letting that list survive as a martyr. To leave folks believing that the ONLY REASONS they can not succeed is the evil oil companies, Conservatives and dullards like me with "no imagination" ---- That impression can't stand.

People need to KNOW the reasons why they are not solutions to powering advanced civilizations, and we will shortly demonstrate to the public WHY that is so.. And why we've spent ENOUGH developing phoney markets for them. They need to realize the enviro implications of raptor kills by wind turbines, and the horrible effects of living too close to wind farms. They need to see that geothermal is a dirty mining operation, they need to understand that electricity in the amounts we require can not easily be stored by solar technologies.. It's SHOWTIME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gnarlylove]

What I have repeated time and time again is that I support sensible advancement and that politically, we should push harder for funding, research, and obviously the building of more renewables. Solar is less efficient than is needed for a large, state-wide operation built in a condensed unit/region. I never said to not build solar in general but clearly you pick and choose what you read.

I have continually ascribed to the rule of thumb: more ethical practices over less ethical ones in a sensible way that doesn't grind society to a halt: which would be to drop SOME but NOT ALL of the subsidies for fossil fuels and increase renewable funding, subsidies and consumer subsidies too to improve watt output and increase demand.

Geothermal runs part of my alma matter, I didn't blow up. I never said energy has to be 100% clean and ethical or we should not use it. That is your liberal stereotype and I still get it thrown at me even though I have repeated at least 3 times I am not claiming we should have perfect energy: just that we should be moving towards renewables which will inevitably BE the future as fossil fuels dry up.

II admit noting a geothermal issue was helpful but we both know that fossil fuels have many more issues. Thank you for alerting me to the dangers of geothermal, I will be sure to note it is imperfect along with the rest of the renewables.

However, you have continued to address strawmen rather than address my central point. Yes, I know renewables are currently inadequate to provide the scale of our consumption. I could show you 7 instances where I've said that. But you cannot accept that I agree with you for some reason and keep using it as an argument against me.

You have brought up small time issues that in all likelihood will be solved as technology improves. That's just an educated guess. Again, it won't necessarily happen this decade but in the next 50 years we will see a very different world simply because of technology. But technology cannot solve the inevitable problem that fossil fuels are finite.

You are timid to admit fossil fuels are ethically and environmentally less sound than renewables on the whole but are so quick to point out a single instance of geothermal gone wrong. Let me take geothermal off the list just so you don't whine about that in a way that makes it seem my whole argument hinges on the cleanliness of geothermal.

My hope for this debate has been a call to shift paradigms from solely relying on fossil fuels to promoting the future of renewables as an inevitability. Why resist? Oh you arent? Well then I'm confused because you have yet to admit that in plain enough english that a stupid liberal like me can understand it.

 

[skookerasbil]

i agree with you kooks, there is so much special interest going on that government cannot perform its basic duty: to represent the public.

Hence we see orgs. like NRA succeed in defeating public majority in a recall election. John Morse and Angela Giron were ousted last winter over the fact they supported gun laws. Polling in the state reveals the public supported it by a majority (60%) But those senators were ousted because NRA ran a big campaign to get their supporters to vote. The rest of Coloradoans didn't think it worth going to the polls to vote and it turns out they were wrong. That special interest group obviously fudged a political election but somehow it is still above the board. We can see what went wrong but can do nothing about it. Sad system we live in where the majority must bow before those with power, rather than the way the Constitution intended: power from the people up the ranks.

Hate to break it to you sweets, but the reason the SKEPTICS ARE WINNING is exactly because the government represents the people. Exactly why.......but you're just not connecting the dots.

Remember Cap and Trade? Its dead. Because the people didn't want 2.2 million coal workers out of work in this crap economy and because people aren't enamored with paying DOUBLE for their electricity. Pols who support that lose their jobs rather quickly.......as in, immediately.


The gubmint also needs to get the **** out of the way and let drilling happen in Alaska and off out shores.



Malthus was an asshole.

 

[flacaltenn]

What I have repeated time and time again is that I support sensible advancement and that politically, we should push harder for funding, research, and obviously the building of more renewables. Solar is less efficient than is needed for a large, state-wide operation built in a condensed unit/region. I never said to not build solar in general but clearly you pick and choose what you read.

I have continually ascribed to the rule of thumb: more ethical practices over less ethical ones in a sensible way that doesn't grind society to a halt: which would be to drop SOME but NOT ALL of the subsidies for fossil fuels and increase renewable funding, subsidies and consumer subsidies too to improve watt output and increase demand.

Geothermal runs part of my alma matter, I didn't blow up. I never said energy has to be 100% clean and ethical or we should not use it. That is your liberal stereotype and I still get it thrown at me even though I have repeated at least 3 times I am not claiming we should have perfect energy: just that we should be moving towards renewables which will inevitably BE the future as fossil fuels dry up.

II admit noting a geothermal issue was helpful but we both know that fossil fuels have many more issues. Thank you for alerting me to the dangers of geothermal, I will be sure to note it is imperfect along with the rest of the renewables.

Im wagering that youre confusing geothermal heat pumps with geothermal electricity generation. Bet youre a freaking Buckeye. Those buildings have an architectural enhancement due to tapping ground temperature.. Its NOT truely power generation. But it works, as long as its maintained well for mold and other health issues. Important to know exactly what youre endorsing.

.

However, you have continued to address strawmen rather than address my central point. Yes, I know renewables are currently inadequate to provide the scale of our consumption. I could show you 7 instances where I've said that. But you cannot accept that I agree with you for some reason and keep using it as an argument against me.

You have brought up small time issues that in all likelihood will be solved as technology improves. That's just an educated guess. Again, it won't necessarily happen this decade but in the next 50 years we will see a very different world simply because of technology. But technology cannot solve the inevitable problem that fossil fuels are finite.

You are timid to admit fossil fuels are ethically and environmentally less sound than renewables on the whole but are so quick to point out a single instance of geothermal gone wrong. Let me take geothermal off the list just so you don't whine about that in a way that makes it seem my whole argument hinges on the cleanliness of geothermal.

My hope for this debate has been a call to shift paradigms from solely relying on fossil fuels to promoting the future of renewables as an inevitability. Why resist? Oh you arent? Well then I'm confused because you have yet to admit that in plain enough english that a stupid liberal like me can understand it.

Not a single instance of problems with renewables. A long litany of outrages where ecofrauds have twisted their paltry principles into pretzels. MANY disasters in true geothermal mining. Our PREZ just signed a special death warrant for our National Symbol, so that eagles can be legally killed by windfarms. Greedy leftists who are willing to damn up pristine river estuaries and bays to install underwater cuisinarts to chop up wildlife and bless it green. Just told you yesterday that Solar Thermal Towers can still have flaming oil storage explosions and chemical spills in the deserts. We seen a whole novel of eco hypocrisy about this list of crap..

I just very plainly told you... The list has HAD its era of support. It aint getting carriedd much longer. You see it beginning, but the popcorn has run out and the credits are scrolling. THIS list and the $Bills spent chasing it worldwide is fully cooked. THIS is what you get. And there aint no conspiracy that secretly defeated it.. These things on the list were NEVER alternatives and never will be. Here comes the ushers, Show is over. GET IT? Move on. Put the adults back in charge and start looking for the next big things....

 

[gnarlylove]

"admit fossil fuels are ethically and environmentally less sound than renewables"

What does that say? LESS SOUND. That means there are LESS problems regarding ethical and environmental issues. How you turned that into "no problems" is the matter of your conservative filter. You couldn't help view me as a caricature if you tried, your posts have evinced this continually. It's the same reason you can't admit fossil fuels will necessarily cease someday and no matter how much you rag on renewable resources as being inadequate (a point I agree with you--they need to improve significantly) they will necessarily replace fossil fuels. Plain and simple fact of inevitability. What renewables come to the fore is a matter of funding and technological breakthroughs over the next century or 3.

You know renewable simply means the energy source can be used without depleting it to zero, right? That is precisely why fossil fuels must be replaced eventually.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"admit fossil fuels are ethically and environmentally less sound than renewables"

What does that say? LESS SOUND. That means there are LESS problems regarding ethical and environmental issues. How you turned that into "no problems" is the matter of your conservative filter. You couldn't help view me as a caricature if you tried, your posts have evinced this continually. It's the same reason you can't admit fossil fuels will necessarily cease someday and no matter how much you rag on renewable resources as being inadequate (a point I agree with you--they need to improve significantly) they will necessarily replace fossil fuels. Plain and simple fact of inevitability. What renewables come to the fore is a matter of funding and technological breakthroughs over the next century or 3.

You know renewable simply means the energy source can be used without depleting it to zero, right? That is precisely why fossil fuels must be replaced eventually.

Eventually, recoverable fossil fuels will be exhausted.
Eventually, the "green energy" technology and economics will work.
Not today.
Today, "green energy" subsidies are a huge waste of money.

 

[flacaltenn]

"admit fossil fuels are ethically and environmentally less sound than renewables"

What does that say? LESS SOUND. That means there are LESS problems regarding ethical and environmental issues. How you turned that into "no problems" is the matter of your conservative filter. You couldn't help view me as a caricature if you tried, your posts have evinced this continually. It's the same reason you can't admit fossil fuels will necessarily cease someday and no matter how much you rag on renewable resources as being inadequate (a point I agree with you--they need to improve significantly) they will necessarily replace fossil fuels. Plain and simple fact of inevitability. What renewables come to the fore is a matter of funding and technological breakthroughs over the next century or 3.

You know renewable simply means the energy source can be used without depleting it to zero, right? That is precisely why fossil fuels must be replaced eventually.

Ya know gnarlyone, I dont have a personal grudge here with you. I DO have a massive grudge against phoney eco--frauds that suddenly develop aan ACTUAL LUST for killing birds by thousands, or frying them while they are in the air.. EcoFrauds who would chain themselves to a cactus to protect the desert tortoise from a nat gas well, but help EVICT those critters for a solar plant.. The hypocrisy sickens me and motivates me to make certain the public is aware of the massive deceptions about your list.

I got no beef with whatever private research is done on these technologies in the next 100 years.. But public policy and lifebearing decisions will NOT BE MADE on bad expectations and misrepresentations about how much land in Cali you need to "gain energy independence"..

Your "inevitable" beliefs based on not much else but faith are a danger to society.. other than that -- I love you too...

 

[Abraham3]

The hypocrisy sickens you?

How does the hyperbole taste?

 

[flacaltenn]

The hypocrisy sickens you?

How does the hyperbole taste?

Yeah, it does. To find out that the political wings of the enviro movement lack principles and will go counter to Organizations like the Sierra Club, Sea Shepard and the Audubon just to gain power and control is revolting..

Hyperbole? Only if you think an think a smart energy policy and life/death decisions are fluffy concepts -- i suppose.. It IS dangerous to have the general public under the misconceptions that there is a list of ready alternatives and it's just a political struggle standing in the way of progress...

You do this for personal entertainment -- i suppose??

 

[Kosh]

The hypocrisy sickens you?

How does the hyperbole taste?

You tell us?

 

[Abraham3]

The hypocrisy sickens you?

How does the hyperbole taste?

Yeah, it does. To find out that the political wings of the enviro movement lack principles and will go counter to Organizations like the Sierra Club, Sea Shepard and the Audubon just to gain power and control is revolting..

Hyperbole? Only if you think an think a smart energy policy and life/death decisions are fluffy concepts -- i suppose.. It IS dangerous to have the general public under the misconceptions that there is a list of ready alternatives and it's just a political struggle standing in the way of progress...

You do this for personal entertainment -- i suppose??

I do this because I hold the ignorance and political bigotry of deniers everywhere as a real threat to the health and well-being of my children. You?

 

[skookerasbil]

FlaCalTenn is 100% correct......."I got no beef with whatever private research is done on these technologies in the next 100 years".

But its not going to happen in the current landscape. Its just not.

The climate crusaders think that you just keep busting people over the head with the "consensus science" and the landscape will change and the people as a whole will embrace current renewable technologies. They just fail to comprehend the special interests dynamic mainly because they think that the folks who design, develop and build solar and wind do it for the sake of the environment.

The fix is in s0ns.......go back and see the dozens of links posted up in this thread alone. Its all you need. If you cant connect the dots then.......I cant help you!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The hypocrisy sickens you?

How does the hyperbole taste?

Yeah, it does. To find out that the political wings of the enviro movement lack principles and will go counter to Organizations like the Sierra Club, Sea Shepard and the Audubon just to gain power and control is revolting..

Hyperbole? Only if you think an think a smart energy policy and life/death decisions are fluffy concepts -- i suppose.. It IS dangerous to have the general public under the misconceptions that there is a list of ready alternatives and it's just a political struggle standing in the way of progress...

You do this for personal entertainment -- i suppose??

I do this because I hold the ignorance and political bigotry of deniers everywhere as a real threat to the health and well-being of my children. You?

Well take a bow s0n......we're all real proud of ya........