I am not a mind reader. I can only guess from what Paul quoted that he did not like the left/right stuff. Not the debate between the whether anthropogenic Global Warming is an issue or even occurring. I don't know if we cannot discuss the issue at all or if we just need to keep politics and insults out of it. I know I wasn't calling anyone stupid or ignorant, nor coming up with pejoratives like denier to describe people with a different belief system than me. There were also several points I wanted to address in that last thread directed at my comments. I don't know the acceptable way to do that, so I'll just start, and then walk away from this thread for the rest of the day and see if it passes moderator muster.
|
Ignorance is bliss...Why does every denier think Al Gore is the word for all? I've never even seen his movie...But way to make up things.
|
I suppose, but I wouldn't know Kurt. Again, with the denier insult on top of calling me ignorant, huh? You do know Al Gore is one of the main characters that threw that word out there for you to use, right? You didn't come up with the word denier - it was given to you. Further, Gore has won a Nobel and an Oscar for his movie. He is, without a doubt, the most recognized person in this movement. Forget about me, you have PhD climatologists that have decades of experience and disagree with what you believe. And you call them deniers? Hurl an invective at them for doing their job as scientists and peer reviewing a THEORY and pointing out flaws in it? Is that neccesary? Do you think that is in line with how peer review and the scientific method operate?
You understand that my objection is to that particular pejorative, not a different belief about anthropogenic Global Warming, right? I only ask you think about the implications of that word that I already outlined. Why it was
carefully chosen and how it flies in the face of how science, scientific discourse and peer review is
supposed to work.
Galieleo was a denier. Copernicus was a denier. Many, many scientific discoveries were made by
deniers, people that had a different scientific belief than what was proffered by the powers that be.
|
You assumed I want all use of oil stopped...Where did you get that?
|
You make an incorrect assumption about my assumption. I assume no such thing. I was only pointing out all of the absolute benefits fossil fuels have provided us. Benefits that nobody who takes the stance of anthropogenic Global Warming ever gives credit, let alone lip service to. Benefits that
would not exist without fossil fuels. Benefits that would disappaear tomorrow if fossil fuels did,
as there is no technology available today to replace them. Not solar, not wind.
|
I don't expect you to know every post I've made, so I'll help you out...I have posted that a big reason we need to cut down on burning oil is so that we can use it to make things that need oil to be made. How does that fact fit into your response above?
|
Okay. That's fine, but in a Global Warming thread, what am I to assume? I also don't believe we're running out of oil anytime soon ...
|
It would seem to me that the more you claim we need oil to make things, the more you'd agree we should be using oil to do that, instead of burning it?
|
Depends. If it means bringing our current transportation methods to drastic halts, no. If it means putting food in our gas tanks in the form of corn while thousands of children die everyday from malnutriton, no. If it means reducing our energy consumption, no. Lot's of nos.
|
And we need the same oil to power planes and helicopters, like in your example above...But what you forget is, that same fuel will soon cost a lot more, if we don't find alternatives for cars, home heating, etc NOW.
|
I forget no such thing Kurt. We also could start drilling in ANWAR NOW and have reduced costs. We could have started there 15 years ago and have lower costs today. Lot's of reserves to tap. That is the way the world works. As oil becomes scarce, which will not happen in either of our lifetimes, money will be invested in other technologies. Right now, after decades of investments, solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels.
|
Yes...We have used oil for great benefit in the past. But we also used steam, and animals before steam, for great gain...Oil played a great part in American history. Now it's time to move on to something better.
|
Steam? Animals? We also used rocks to kill animals, sticks to try to plow the ground, animal skin to make clothes, grass to build houses, etc. Comparing the benefits of fossil fuels to steam and animal power is silly. Further, there is
nothing better than fossil fuels for providing energy right now. Not solar, not wind, not anythhing else. You could argue nuclear power generation if you want, but nuclear has plenty of problems, like spent rod storage and possible plant calamities that will release radiation.
|
What I want is to progress past oil. We have other options now. We have sun and wind. If these options were allowed to compete in a fair market, they'd be much further along. You are for a fair market, aren't you?
|
No, we don't have other options right now Kurt. Wind and solar
CANNOT currently replace the generation of energy from fossil fuels at either the capacity or price and in the amounts we demand. Fair market? Do you realize the subsidizes being given to
green energy right now? Your statement that they would be much further if allowed to compete in a fair market is flat out wrong. Wind and solar would
not survive in a fair market, free from government impositions. The
green energy industry is heavily subsidized. They receive very real subsidies as well as receiving more tax reductions than does oil.
If solar and wind competed in a fair market, there would be even less of it available today.
|
You don't even have your facts correct. You said that Africans need fossil fuels for many things. WRONG. They can easily go solar and greatly improve their standard of living. The great thing about solar is you don't need a grid, which makes it even MORE attractive in 3rd World countries.
|
No, I am not WRONG. Africans need fossil fuels to develop to our level of comfort and technology. That is a fact. Easily go solar? Are you kidding me? Americans cannot even afford to go solar. How is an African supposed to reach our standard of living off of solar? It is impossible. Africa needs a grid Kurt. A lack of a grid and fossil fuel supplied energy kills many, many, many people per day over there. Solar is EXPENSIVE compared to fossil fuel generated electricity. Period. I understand your no grid point, that without a grid some solar can help make life a bit easier, but there is a limit to how far a civilization can advance without an electrical grid and either nuclear or fossil fuel energy supplying that grid. You cannot take solar power and start operating mines and factories to process ore, sophisticated hospitals, etc. Solar cannot do that yet. Not here, not in Africa.
|
To help you with your ignorance...My pet project is here:
|
Ignorant? I'm not ignorant nor have I called anyone ignorant myself. Wish you wouldn't insult and keep the conversation at a higher level, but oh well. Neat little thing you got there. What do you think your chances of going around America and convincing Americans, business, restaraunts, etc., of not using the water from our treatment plants and your reflector instead? Do you use it in your own house for your water needs? I highly doubt it, as it does not fill your needs. But, it is all an African needs to be like you, eh Kurt?
Over a billion people, which is approx. 1 out of 6 people in the World and 54% of Africans, don't have clean water to drink.
Sick people connected to poor water quality fill 50% of the planets hospital beds and over 5000 kids die every day.
The average African and Asian women walk about 4 miles a day, just to collect water and kids all around the planet miss an education because of the time spent getting water.
80 percent of diseases in developing countries are caused by poor water quality and in much of Asia twice as many people die from diarrhea than from HIV
You understand that what will solve these problems is not a solar panel and your reflector. It is an infrastrcuture run on fossil fuels. Period. Everything else is a pipe dream at this point. Don't get me wrong, I have no insults about what you are doing. It is an improvement and can help with some things, but not the solution.
|
To educate you, I'm spending a good deal of my time and resources to helping people, including Africans, to use solar power to get rid of those little parasites in their water.
|
That is a laudable effort. But solar is NOT the solution to Africa's problems. You are providing a band-aid sans sutures and antibiotics. A minor thing to ease the overall plight and not a thing that is the most critical part of the solution for them.
|
So forgive me if I laugh out loud at your comments concerning Africa and solar. I'm walking the walk...And I think I've come up with a major concept to help out...Still needs more testing.
|
The point about Africa is very simple. Because of the claims of anthropogenic Global Warming, extreme pressure is brought down upon Africa to not develop their resources, to not use fossil fuels. You maybe walking A walk, but not THE walk. THE walk is doing whatever you can to help Africans utilize their fossil fuels to achieve our level.
Africa wants to develop. To do so, they NEED fossil fuels. Solar and wind will not get them where they want to be. Where they deserve and have every right to be.
|
Soon, solar panels will be cheap enough for Africans to exploit. They are already under a $1 a watt, which is about half the price they were just 18 months ago...You have been following the prices, correct? If you haven't, how can I respect your opinion on these matters, as I have spent a lot of my own time researching these things?
|
People have been saying that about solar panels for decades. Still, they are way more expensive than fossil fuels. And their price today is because of government subsidies, not market value. And what do you do when the sun goes down Kurt? When it is cloudy, etc? 36.2% of that continent is living on less than $1 per day. How many years do they need to save to buy 1000 Watts of solar power? 1000 Watts won't even power your average coffee maker. Yet you think that solar power at $.50/W will lift Africans to your standard of living? Really? And the capacitors and batteries to store energy for use at night?
What do they do on cloudy days or when the sun goes down? How do they stay up until 11:00 at night in their houses, working to better themselves and their condition, when the sun is not shining? A big battery bank, which again is limited in what it can do compared to fossil fuel energy that operates, uniterrupted, 24/7?
Further a big part of that price drop has nothing to do with technological advancements, certainly NOT in the last 18 months. What has caused the price to drop in the last 18 months is this:
A massive glut of manufacturing capacity - the solar industry sold only 40% of its total solar module capacity last year - is driving down prices.
They're having a yard sale to try to liquidate. The price has dropped because supply has overreached demand and because government subsidized that supply to the size that it is. People are not buying their stuff because it is NOT cost effective and cannot yet fill their needs.
|
Wind or sun can power manufacturing, and despite what you say, not everyone needs oil for power.
|
No it cannot. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun only shines for part of day, no matter where you live. Google cannot operate at 2:00 AM on solar or wind power. The batteries, capacitors and other energy storing devices are a huge, huge part of this equation. What is their price per watt? You think Google can operate off of sun and wind? What do you think their corporate monthly electric bill is? With their billions, the incredible price of their elctric bill, etc., don't you think that what if what you say is possible, they would build their own solar power plant? To get rid of their electric blll? If solar power is as cheap and reliable as you say, then surely they would make that investment, wouldn't they?
|
I don't buy your premise for a second that we need to kiss Big Oil's ass for our economy to flourish. Take that billion a day we send over seas for oil and invest it in solar and wind and infrastructure in the USA.
|
Again, an incorrect assumption. Who said anything about kissing big oil's ass? Not I. We do need, however, fossil fuels for our economy to continue flourishing. Period. Fossil fuels are what have allowed us to reach this point in civilization. I would prefer that billion/day first be used to get our country out bankruptcy myself. And then we can talk about other things to do with it and whether or not solar and wind are viable investments.
|
Take another billion a day we spend giving Big Oil FREE defense over seas and invest it in solar and wind and infrastructure USA.
|
Ya know, I don't like our military all over the place. But if we work from your assumption that they are out there to secure oil reserves, well, it ain't Big Oil that military is defending Kurt. It is YOUR lifestyle. Your consumption of electricity. Your plastics. Your gas. Your healthcare system. Who's ass is getting kissed Kurt?
|
Spend the SAME $2 billion a day making America better and then tell me it won't improve our economy more than what we do now. I need a laugh.
|
Depends upon what it is spent upon Kurt. I can think of may, many ways to spend that money that would do the opposite. Like trying to make everyone in America survive off of solar and wind power and making everyone ride a train or bus. Ask Germany how better their economy is for all of the government money dumped into solar power:
According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel's staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany's minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a "threat to the economy." |
Since you're so interested in Africa and clean water, educate yourself with these videos....Note that to pasteurize water, you only need to heat it to about 150F for about 30 minutes. Or, just bring it to a boil if you have enough energy.
|
Educate on what? I know how to heat water to clean it. I challenge you to spend the rest of your days doing this with your water, becoming more green and energy independent. How much less time would you have in your day to be productive if this is how you dealt with your water issues instead of turning on your faucet?
You got a nice idea Kurt and it certainly has tangible benefits and I wish you the best in your endeavors, but it is NOT the solution for the problems in Africa. Sorry.
I'd like to keep this clean Kurt. Feel free to enthusiastically critique my points, but spare calling me ignorant please. If you have some data to support your assertion that 10 square miles in Nevada and solar panels is all we need to do what we are doing now with fossil fuel energy, I would love to read it and give you me thoughts on it. I also encourage you to find another word other than
denier to use for people that do not accept the anthropogenic Global Warming
THEORY.
