Effects of Global Warming ??

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

.

...Not to say that you can run a 21st Century economy on windfarms alone! - but no reason why nowadays every developed country can't generate most of it's power needs from within it's own border, and IMO every reason to do so, including for economic stability from security of supply, certainty on cost and simply from having large scale decently paid jobs inside a home industry.......

The cadets logic is sound.

[Kache Walk]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's a public thread; I'm addressing any who hold that position. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

Thanks for that clarification.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First, i appreciate that you bothered to check; most won't.

The 97%... it's just a number. May not be exactly correct, as you point out. BUT, there's really no dispute that a supermajority, a preponderance, nearly all climate scientists support the contention that human activity is having a measurable effect on climate.

So whether the exact percentage is 85%, or 105%... it's, like, enough, isn't it, that we should be taking them seriously?

Is it? From Doran's abstract, fewer than half of the economic geologists and only about 2/3 of the meteorologists said "yes"; it doesn't talk about the other disciplines, so I don't think it's so cut and dried as to say an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are in agreement. If you say that 75 scientists who make their livings from publishing on climate change are in agreement, then I agree with you.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Awesome

Seems I am 80 years late with my thoughts!

Yes, ditto.

Now, if you are bored, read E. O. Wilson - The Social Conquest of Earth and that will explain WHY we are so unhappy with the situation. Denial of yet another type.

MY interpretation is that - because we are social critters, we NEED to feel as though we are contributing - so we are never happy unless we are doing something "productive." Like processing health insurance forms or checking folks shoes at the airport.

Its all just a shell game to make us feel important. We are NOT.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by savoir

I mean that the poor suffering taxpayers of the country in question must stump up their hard earned buck$ in order for the wind farm to continue to exist. In every case were said wind farm to sell its power on the open market it would fail to cover expenses and so wind up broke.

The oil industry is irrelevant and there is nothing low cost about wind power. Go look at what it costs to change the bearings in one of those turbines.

The cost of a bearing is measured the same way that all things will will be measured in the future - in barrels of oil. And it is not by accident, nor by happenstance that maintaining a windfarm costs more barrels of oil than it produces.

If there were NO oil - do you think the windfarms would be self-sustaining?

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Posted by cwyckham:

Well, you believe wrong. Why don't you look at the two links that I have posted. The one for the US specifically states where the growth comes from.

I see your birth vs death timing link, but it doesn't square with other stats that I've seen. I've tried combing through the census.gov information, but the format of the numbers isn't very useful to compare actual fertility rate (2.1 per woman is the replacement rate for a stable population).

So here's another source (the OECD) that is also a respected source but has its data in an easier to follow format:

The total fertility rate is the number of children that are expected to be born to women of child-bearing age. A rate of about 2.1 will produce a stable population. Less than this, the population will decline unless the shortfall is made up by immigration.
Only two OECD countries have fertility rates above this level: Mexico and Turkey. The average fertility rate in OECD countries is now just 1.6.

http://www.oecd.org/std/37962718.pdf

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by hpeer

MY interpretation is that - because we are social critters, we NEED to feel as though we are contributing - so we are never happy unless we are doing something "productive." Like processing health insurance forms or checking folks shoes at the airport.

Its all just a shell game to make us feel important. We are NOT.

I think it's more about needing to have a purpose - and that probably hard wired from the time when surviving was a 24/7 thing.

and over time that need for a purpose got re-directed into work for the benefit of others (which became the few!).......and along the way just got re-labelled (and sold to the plebs) as neccessary using whatever message / propaganda / brain washing worked over time......otherwise a tough sell with only: "your purpose in working is simply to ensure that I don't have to" .

and just to clarify, I have not gone all Commie - just aware that whilst the "rich" do have a role in a society they are not needed nearly as much as they have convinced folks they are..........and in fact individually they need "us" more than we need "them".

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by ArtM

To back up another poster some pages back - I do know for a fact that "established" science promotes viewpoints that back up their own biased ideas and beliefs.

Conformant research gets funded, non-conformant research does not.

That's not to say that the system does not work - we have created a lot of good usable science over the years - but then, we've also accumulated some bilge-sludge.

Like entropy theory

Surely you're not suggesting that orbital dynamics or the precise output of the sun is somehow mired in established "viewpoints?" Basic physics of orbital dynamics are extremely well understood and open to zero controversy.

Is your "entropy theory" comment disputing the second law of thermodynamics? I find it hard to fathom that there would be a scientist who has lived in the last couple centuries who would dispute the laws of thermodynamics, especially the second one.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Ship2210

Fully with you on this one Blackoak. The tree-hugging "green" campaigners are costing us a fortune and there has been no "global warming" for the last 10 years at least. The only global warming is the hot air these people breathe.

Ship, how do you measure "cost"? In dollars? The funny-money that we call "dollars" today have many functions - one of which is to artificially control access to resources by individuals.

In real-life terms, what is the "cost" of green campaigning? What great social advances have been lost in this effort? What people have suffered as a result of this endeavor? What rare and precious resources have been permanently lost to humanity in the pursuit of "green" technology?

Green technology primarily consume HUMAN resources - creativity, ingenuity, and time. And idle human resources are in greater supply than ever in the history of man kind. Better, the consumption of these human resources leads to an IMPROVEMENT of those resources - that is , consuming a person's ingenuity and intelligence leads to an increase in human ingenuity and intelligence, rather than a reduction as happens with the consumption natural resources like coal or trees.

Dollars are not a scarce resource. They can be created with the push of a button, and once created are never destroyed - at least not until we enter a deflationary cycle.

More importantly, dollars become MORE valuable when they are circulated. It doesn't matter if they are circulated for the purpose of cutting lawns, writing children's books, or building wind turbines. Their expenditure is critical, and the more that can be spent on HUMAN resources rather than NATURAL resources, the more healthy the so-called "economy" will be.

[micah719]

I object to being classified as a resource.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by ArtM

The cost of a bearing is measured the same way that all things will will be measured in the future - in barrels of oil. And it is not by accident, nor by happenstance that maintaining a windfarm costs more barrels of oil than it produces.

If there were NO oil - do you think the windfarms would be self-sustaining?

Yes. Because they'd have to be.

Also, I question the assertion that "maintaining a windfarm costs more barrels of oil than it produces" currently, and especially your crystal-ball that tells you that wind-farm reliability and economics won't ever improve.

It's only because fossil fuel is under-priced that alternative energy needs a kickstart.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by atoll

the big picture is ,any change is just the earths way of stabalising its existence,the 7 billion plus people on earth are immaterial, if we are lucky climate change will restore the balance to a sustainable 3 billion,future generations will be digging through the topsoil and finding pieces of plastic and concrete and commenting on the wasteful nature of early modern man.................and how it led to their downfall

Now this is a theory I am more likely to subscribe to and am hoping for. I'm waiting for its welcome coming ... just hope I'm not one of those randomly destroyed samples of homo sapiens lol.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

Surely you're not suggesting that orbital dynamics or the precise output of the sun is somehow mired in established "viewpoints?" Basic physics of orbital dynamics are extremely well understood and open to zero controversy.

Is your "entropy theory" comment disputing the second law of thermodynamics? I find it hard to fathom that there would be a scientist who has lived in the last couple centuries who would dispute the laws of thermodynamics, especially the second one.

I dispute something, but I'm not sure what. Entropy theory is caught up in a series of other theories related to time travel, the speed of light, the existence of space-time continuum, relativity, etc in a way that I feel has some fundamentally flawed underpinning. All appear (to me anyway) to be based on the acceptance of the others as established "fact" - a society of back-slapping kool-aid drinkers establishing "facts" through mutual acceptance.

I plan to keep an open mind on these established "facts" as potentially flawed until I personally and fully understand them.

One fact I implicitly understand is that I cannot expect to get any mainstream scientific funding in my pursuit of such.

Basically I'm seeing a rabbit hole of ever-increasing complexity in these theories predicting many effects and results which have never been observed or measured in the past, and for which there is no existing method of measurement or observation.

[micah719]

Underpriced? Lol. The cost of extracting and processing it is an order of magnitude less than the price we peons pay.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by ArtM

Ship, how do you measure "cost"? In dollars? The funny-money that we call "dollars" today have many functions - one of which is to artificially control access to resources by individuals.

In real-life terms, what is the "cost" of green campaigning? What great social advances have been lost in this effort? What people have suffered as a result of this endeavor? What rare and precious resources have been permanently lost to humanity in the pursuit of "green" technology?

Green technology primarily consume HUMAN resources - creativity, ingenuity, and time. And idle human resources are in greater supply than ever in the history of man kind. Better, the consumption of these human resources leads to an IMPROVEMENT of those resources - that is , consuming a person's ingenuity and intelligence leads to an increase in human ingenuity and intelligence, rather than a reduction as happens with the consumption natural resources like coal or trees.

Dollars are not a scarce resource. They can be created with the push of a button, and once created are never destroyed - at least not until we enter a deflationary cycle.

More importantly, dollars become MORE valuable when they are circulated. It doesn't matter if they are circulated for the purpose of cutting lawns, writing children's books, or building wind turbines. Their expenditure is critical, and the more that can be spent on HUMAN resources rather than NATURAL resources, the more healthy the so-called "economy" will be.

I a not going to be drawn into a long-winded argument over "cost". Common sense and each of us doing our bit to minimise our impact personally is all I have an interest in frankly, not big business and Governments with vested interest in huge windfarms etc etc that blight our seas and landscapes and "energy efficient" lightbulbs in homes that are costly, bad for your eyes, and will not work with a dimmer switch.