|
Fog Tripper posted:Clearly shelling out 50% more to the power company will make things all better, because they should make more money when one decides to go solar. lol you can't tell the difference between two different issues
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
Rutibex posted:see this is the part where you global warming nutters go off the rails. you can't be super smug about "science being on my side" excuse me for filling this post with dangerous amounts of Care but this sort of thing is literally already happening. the Syrian civil war was brewing for a while because Assad is a maniac etc, but it actually kicked off in large part because of a massive drought, the largest Syrian drought ever recorded and thought to be the largest in almost a thousand years. like, the Pentagon recognizes this poo poo is a major concern. it starts in the places that are already boiling deserts but it's not going to stop there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:21
|
|
and then veer into insane apocalypse prepper crap in the same breath. it makes you all lose credibility
|
World War Mammories posted:excuse me for filling this post with dangerous amounts of Care but this sort of thing is literally already happening. the Syrian civil war was brewing for a while because Assad is a maniac etc, but it actually kicked off in large part because of a massive drought, the largest Syrian drought ever recorded and thought to be the largest in almost a thousand years. like, the Pentagon recognizes this poo poo is a major concern. it starts in the places that are already boiling deserts but it's not going to stop there. What? I thought it was caused by protests to release political prisoners and the govt shooting into the crowds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Protests.2C_civil_uprising.2C_and_defections_.28January.E2.80.93July_2011.29 The first Global Climate change war is still forthcoming!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
If too many people use solar panels, there won't be enough sunlight left for plants
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Seize the means of production and educate yourself op.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
RolandTower posted:"Global Cooling" was a single Times magazine article from the 70s. During one of the early serious American scientific conferences on climate change hosted by MIT, there was some limited discussion of whether particulate production could produce a cooling effect that would outstrip the warming effect of increased levels of CO2. The Time magazine article focused on that because "global ice age" was an easier SCARY concept to sell to its readership. This is pretty much all wrong fyi. While there certainly was no consensus, there were a good amount of experts who bought into it back then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Burt Sexual posted:What? I thought it was caused by protests to release political prisoners and the govt shooting into the crowds. the proximal cause was the arab spring and assad murdering people, of course. can't point to a single thing. the question is why the Syrian civil war is so much longer-lasting; why there are so many people in syrian cities that are unemployed, scared, and ready to fight; why people feel desperate enough to take up arms in the wake of the arab spring. (it's not like assad was a good dude before 2011, but things didn't explode until then.) the claim is not that the syrian civil war would never have happened without climate change, the claim is that a severe drought made various bad decisions by multiple actors (eg. overgrazing making fields unable to withstand drought or turkey hoarding water upstream from syria and iraq) came back to bite syria in the rear end, complicated by mass migration of farmers from the 75% of farms that failed between 2006-2011 causing increased social stress. e: source from the pentagon World War Mammories fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
hey yall i dont believe water is real now lets debate ocean conservation
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is pretty much all wrong fyi. While there certainly was no consensus, there were a good amount of experts who bought into it back then. In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950” (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:excuse me for filling this post with dangerous amounts of Care but this sort of thing is literally already happening. the Syrian civil war was brewing for a while because Assad is a maniac etc, but it actually kicked off in large part because of a massive drought, the largest Syrian drought ever recorded and thought to be the largest in almost a thousand years. like, the Pentagon recognizes this poo poo is a major concern. it starts in the places that are already boiling deserts but it's not going to stop there. actually the syrain civil war was started by hillary clinton, so she can oust Assad and let Saudi Arabia build a gas pipeline through Syria to europe. this will undercut russias gas to Europe and crash their prices, so russia is mad and helping Assad. nothing to do with global warming lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Nut to Butt posted:In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950” (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974). Even saying all that is true, the window of that consensus is only a decade if that, whereas global warming has been in a consensus for several decades with far more studies backing its existence. Sure the models change but lol if we have the time to fight over the mess that is the fake studies propped up by company interests
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:In a perfect world, government control is the best solution because it doesn't make sense for things like major life-sustaining infrastructure to have a profit motive. Unfortunately, we live in a nonperfect world where it's hard to set aside now for a problem 50 years down the line (like climate change, if you believe in that). Look at what I quoted again. If individual's solar got to the point where each home could sustain itself after the initial investment, the money that is no longer being spent on that would theoretically be spent on other things. Win. Sales tax on those things would help to cover the cost of the grid maintenance. Win. Less fossil fuels used to supply energy. Win. Yes, the government is an inefficient pile of poo poo, but weaning off of necessity of a for profit energy provider, weaning off fossil fuels, isn't that what the goal is? Road/Bridge infrastructure is a joke, much in part to the organizations doing the work getting away with bloated (but accepted) bids, bad scheduling, having 4 guys watching each individual guy do actual work, etc. There seems to be very little oversight. (There was also news coverage a while back about PENDOT workers "seeding" the roads so that they would need maintenance sooner than later, ensuring job security. But that is a whine for another thread.) A misanthrope posted:hey yall i dont believe water is real now lets debate ocean conservation Jesus Christ are you on a posting binge. 67 posts so far today alone. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:actually the syrain civil war was started by hillary clinton, so she can oust Assad and let Saudi Arabia build a gas pipeline through Syria to europe. this will undercut russias gas to Europe and crash their prices, so russia is mad and helping Assad. uh huh. okay, so hillary clinton is secretly satan and she spends time with john podesta ordering children to gently caress as if they were pizza in between starting proxy wars. doesn't change the fact that climate change helped make that poo poo into a powder keg ready to explode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:uh huh. Cartoons of Mohammed have the same "powder keg" potential.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
ACTUALLY the Syrian civil was was caused, like all problems in the middle East, by Jews (Al-Jazeera, 500 - 2016)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Look at what I quoted again. If individual's solar got to the point where each home could sustain itself after the initial investment, the money that is no longer being spent on that would theoretically be spent on other things. Win. Well to be pedantic if you have a $100 electric bill normally with a for-profit utility and $0 net electric bill with solar panels and a government utility the government still needs to make up that $100 minus the for-profit utility's profit and the fuel it doesn't need to burn for you. Given that the highest sales tax in the country is about 10% it takes more than just "I'll spend that $100 on other stuff!" to make up the difference (unless you believe profit and the fuel saved = 80-90% of your original bill depending on how your spending compounds through the economy). Also to be pedantic, the goal is to get electricity to your house when you need it. Weaning off of fossil fuels is a secondary goal with many carry-on positives (like stopping climate change if you believe in that stuff) and negatives (like making the grid harder to manage).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Cartoons of Mohammed have the same "powder keg" potential. im not so sure that cartoons of mohammed actually exist
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
You'll use less power and save on heating if you just slap on a second pair of magical Mormon undergarments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Bert Roberge posted:You'll use less power and save on heating if you just slap on a second pair of magical Mormon undergarments. I don't think the mormons would be cool with me wearing their underwear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
C-SPAN Caller posted:Even saying all that is true, the window of that consensus is only a decade if that, whereas global warming has been in a consensus for several decades with far more studies backing its existence. Sure the models change but lol if we have the time to fight over the mess that is the fake studies propped up by company interests even saying all that is true, the common thread is that the "expert consensus" has been laughably wrong over all of those decades, whether predicting ice ages or water worlds, and all the "solutions" presented are simply wealth transfers from industrialized nations to poor ones. the idea that humanity is so brittle as to be unable to adapt to changing climatic conditions via historical means- population migration, engineering projects, etc. over the span of hundreds of years is ludicrous. not to mention that "it's already too late!" and the world will be ending any day now. yes, any day now... ultimately, it seems the major error is overestimating the sensitivity of the climate to elevated levels of CO2. they're off by a factor of about 2-3, which is why they're so consistently wrong and can't even model the past accurately, much less the future. i understand many people will remain unconvinced, so i would end with the suggestion that the most impactful climate-conscious act the average person can do would be a voluntary cessation of respiration. namaste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Nut to Butt posted:even saying all that is true, the common thread is that the "expert consensus" has been laughably wrong over all of those decades, whether predicting ice ages or water worlds, and all the "solutions" presented are simply wealth transfers from industrialized nations to poor ones. the idea that humanity is so brittle as to be unable to adapt to changing climatic conditions via historical means- population migration, engineering projects, etc. over the span of hundreds of years is ludicrous. I actually was forced to read about 20 studies from the 80s to now on Climate Change papers, every single one, even the ones the deniers use as evidence and have massive controversy over their publishing, still said it was happening, just not as bad. You don't seem to understand the weight of the sheer volume over nearly 30 years of scientific journals done saying it's happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:While not really buying into the whole climate change/warming thing, thanks for leaving the world worse off than you found it, boomer
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:thanks for leaving the world worse off than you found it, boomer Hell, I plan on doing the same. I like to think of it as a "gently caress you" to the people who aren't socially retarded and have managed to have children, which I never will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is pretty much all wrong fyi. While there certainly was no consensus, there were a good amount of experts who bought into it back then. No, there really wasn't. Even during the time "global cooling" got a lot of press attention, the majority of scientific studies were already pointing towards global warming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
FedEx Mercury posted:Hell, I plan on doing the same. I like to think of it as a "gently caress you" to the people who aren't socially retarded and have managed to have children, which I never will. Nobody will care and your spite will just keep you alone
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
where are we on getting op banned forever?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:
TBF, we'd need graphs going back to year 0 to prove this phenomenon based on them
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
ditty bout my clitty posted:TBF, we'd need graphs going back to year 0 to prove this phenomenon based on them the earth is only about 6000 years old anyway, one or two centuries of data is all you need to convince me global warming is a thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
A misanthrope posted:where are we on getting op banned forever? 72
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I'm fuckin gay op. What does your fancy mountain living say about how globally cool I am?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
C-SPAN Caller posted:I actually was forced to read about 20 studies from the 80s to now on Climate Change papers, every single one, even the ones the deniers use as evidence and have massive controversy over their publishing, still said it was happening, just not as bad. my condolences. perhaps i don't understand the weight, but i would argue the bulk of the "deniers" objections have to do with severity and the massive compulsory societal changes many of the most influential warmists seek to inflict on humanity rather than objecting to the idea that climate changes. of course it does. the position that CO2 impacts that is relatively uncontroversial, as well, although it seems a bit extreme to label it a pollutant. ultimately, i think many people these days have substituted science for religion, yet don't appreciate the very real limits of our knowledge. we have a very poor understanding of climate, all told, and the fervor with which warmists seek to disparage (likening skeptics to holocaust deniers) and silence ("the science is settled!") their doubters speaks volumes about their cause. it is so censorious because it is so weak, despite having the backing of basically the entire global establishment. if you're really interested, search for the stories of the scientists whose work has, in any minor way, undercut the "consensus" to see how much respect those claiming the mantle of empiricism have demonstrated for the scientific method.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
ok good *starts to turn around and then does a sputtering double take he-hey WAIT A MINUTE
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
C-SPAN Caller posted:Nebraska has public power and it's cheap as gently caress, lol at you people living in states with forced capitalism on something that should 100% be state run due to societal necessity of mass distribution and localized monopoly creation. I just recently moved to Vegas for a job, and one of the propositions during the election was whether NV Energy's (owned by Warren Buffet I believe) monopoly should be canceled. I had very mixed feelings on this. NV Energy is a private company but due to the monopoly was regulated by the government in order to prevent monopolistic free-market price-gouging. Energy here is cheaper than California and elsewhere, for the record. On the one hand it's pretty hosed up for an entire state to depend on one private company for power. However, in several states de-monopolization of power utilities led to higher prices (Texas comes to mind). There is also the fact that NV Energy owns all of the energy infrastructure in the state. How will other companies "compete" with them when they will actually have to pay NV Energy for the privilege of using their energy distribution infrastructure? I ended up voting no, because at least with the current system there is some public control over the utility. In my mind a much better solution would be to use eminent domain to purchase all of NV Energy's infrastructure. The company could continue to be paid run it for the state, but prices would be set by the state and profits taken by them as well. In conclusion, I guess I believe that energy generation is something that should be handled by state governments, with tons of oversight to prevent corruption or the state using higher prices to balance its books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Play posted:I just recently moved to Vegas for a job, and one of the propositions during the election was whether NV Energy's (owned by Warren Buffet I believe) monopoly should be canceled. Deregulation requires proper guidance and not just stupid rich people money grabs, which in that case is what it would have been. Should have been a public power conversion instead like you said. The deregulation of the railroads by Carter were good because it allowed railroads to not be forced into servicing Podunk routes that short haul would better serve anyways so railroads weren't bloated with excessive maintenance of track since unlike trucking, trains don't get any subsidies other than small payments for running Amtrak route maintenance, whereas trucking gets a 66% tax payer discount for its route maintenance. People who call for blind deregulation are dumb but it can do good when you get bureaucratic bloat or changes to businesses, since the regulations on railroads were when railroads were the only transport in town for hauling large amounts of goods so those routes were tantamount, but trucking meant everyone with a road could be serviced for small hauls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:but the fact that someone can buy solar panels and sell power to the utility at noon while buying power from 5 PM to 6 AM and have a $0 electric bill will be an issue in the long term. lol you think every power company pays pv customers for feeding them energy pro tip they loving don't
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
central dogma posted:Lol at everyone who thinks the poor power companies have to charge more for people using less power just to keep from going broke. What percentage of homes are serviced by a single mile+ long line that needs constant servicing? Here, at least, the power company will pay for like 1-2 poles' worth of line out to your place from where the line already runs, max. Everything else you're on the hook paying for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
posting their daily post count doesn't make you any less of an overly defensive baby dinosaur retard OP, lmao. go to FYAD if you want to start flamewars with everyone who calls you out on being an idiot masquerading as the voice of reason (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:lol you think every power company pays pv customers for feeding them energy I'm well aware of that. You guys in Hawaii unfortunately are in a unique situation where there's a large solar install base (why the gently caress not you're so far south and have such high power bills) but nowhere to export noon power to/import peak power from. You're basically the (possible) problems the OP's power company is trying to hold off (and/or your power company is a bunch of money-grubbing bastards).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
Pendragon posted:Hi op! I kinda/sorta understand the energy industry, so you might say I have an "understanding" of this stuff. That said I believe in global warming, so I could be just really stupid too. But in any case, here's why your energy company is doing that! This is such an epic, brutal own that I do not hesitate to quote it two pages later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:43
|
|
