• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stars lament global warming, demand and get air conditioned red carpet...

Visbek said:
Some rich and famous people can fly on a commercial flight without being harassed. DiCaprio is definitely not one of them.

Gore, contrary to right-wing distortions, does usually fly commercial.



Chances are slim that DiCaprio insisted on AC for the red carpet.



Beyonce was mostly correct. Many scientists are now saying that storms like Harvey and Irma were made worse by climate change. Storm surges were higher because of climate change, raising sea levels; Harvey dumped more rain, because the Gulf was warmer, which put more water vapor into the atmosphere; it's even possible that the pressure systems which pinned down Harvey and drove Irma north are connected to climate change.

What climate change probably hasn't done is increase the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms. But there is general agreement that storms are just starting to get more intense and damaging because of climate change.

I'm not sure which Nye speech you're referring to.
Click to expand...

Harvey's rainfall rates were not much different that other tropical events,
the issue was how long the storm stuck around.
I think I had roughly 48 inches at my house over the 2 + days of Harvey.
The rains were heavy, but not much heaver than other storms.
Imagine the worst raining thunderstorm you have ever seen, but place 10 to 15 of
them back to back with one to two hour separations.
 
Renae said:
I am all for improving tech and finding better power sources. Solar isn't the answer, it's an at best situational solution for limited areas. Solar can add supplemental power and heating for things like water, but as a replacement for coal, natural gas or nuclear, it's a foolish waste of resources.
Click to expand...

I disagree...depending on where you live it may be the most efficient, cheapest means of generating energy, especially given advances in solar tech that no longer require rare earth metals, which was legitimate downside. I think regionality will play a big part in deciding which generation method will be best utilized, and would expect to see a lot of different options in play to get to the best way to replace fossil fuels. We're not there yet, but I don't think it's foolish to develop these technologies...they will all be important, and they have all demonstrated tangible improvements over earlier attempts. Time will tell, but I don't think anyone is backing away from alternative energy sources in the long term. Yup, there's been set backs, poor implementations, false starts...and yet, the tech keeps developing and improving, and we're still talking about it. I think that's a good thing.
 
OlNate said:
I disagree...depending on where you live it may be the most efficient, cheapest means of generating energy, especially given advances in solar tech that no longer require rare earth metals, which was legitimate downside. I think regionality will play a big part in deciding which generation method will be best utilized, and would expect to see a lot of different options in play to get to the best way to replace fossil fuels. We're not there yet, but I don't think it's foolish to develop these technologies...they will all be important, and they have all demonstrated tangible improvements over earlier attempts. Time will tell, but I don't think anyone is backing away from alternative energy sources in the long term. Yup, there's been set backs, poor implementations, false starts...and yet, the tech keeps developing and improving, and we're still talking about it. I think that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Till night falls
 
RabidAlpaca said:
FYI, recognizing the scientific fact that the earth is warming and humans play a role in that does not mean you're not allowed to use electricity. What matters most is the source of that electricity, nobody is asking anyone to live in the stone age. Also, I'm willing to bet that the energy saved from those thousands of people not being in their homes running the AC outweighs the amount of energy used to run a few ACs there, not that any of this matters.

"Look at these liberals driving cars, flying in airplanes and using AC! ****ing hypocrites..."
Click to expand...

What matters most is how much money you donate to your local democrats to save the earth from global warming.

:eye roll:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OlNate said:
You have heard of batteries, right?

So have these guys:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/07/n...-are-getting-a-charge-from-venture-investors/

Sorry, Renae, my friend, progress doesn't seem to want to slow down enough to support your rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Solar is a local thing, it's not enough to replace power generation on any real scale. There is also the problem of power transmission, acreage needed for solar farms big enough to provide power of any real measure. It's like the stupid wind farm up in North Texas, it's great till the wind stops blowing, or blows too strong.

So as for your batteries, what do you do if there is say, an overcast event that lasts for several days? And that city over there that uses a solar farm is going to survive on batteries alone?

C'mon man.
 
OlNate said:
You have heard of batteries, right?

So have these guys:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/07/n...-are-getting-a-charge-from-venture-investors/

Sorry, Renae, my friend, progress doesn't seem to want to slow down enough to support your rhetoric.
Click to expand...

IMHO, that is the key to having electric vehicles (EVs) become popular for long(er) distance travel. Rather than have re-charging stations (that process can take quite a while) only the stations could have a battery swap capability assuming EVs used a standard battery and they were easily accessible. This is how I use my battery powered tools - I have extra batteries, already charged, to keep me going through the work day and then recharge the drained batteries during my off work time. Even if the batteries are EV model specific then EV dealers could provide that "swap and go" service.
 
Renae said:
Solar is a local thing, it's not enough to replace power generation on any real scale. There is also the problem of power transmission, acreage needed for solar farms big enough to provide power of any real measure. It's like the stupid wind farm up in North Texas, it's great till the wind stops blowing, or blows too strong.

So as for your batteries, what do you do if there is say, an overcast event that lasts for several days? And that city over there that uses a solar farm is going to survive on batteries alone?

C'mon man.
Click to expand...

You c'mon...lol... I have already said in this conversation that the landscape of power generation will be diverse, driven by local variables such as topography and weather patterns, and that there are currently problems with the tech as it is today, but those problems are being worked out, as the article I posted provides just one small example of.

Under your logic, we should all be still flying around in the Wright brothers original, and driving Model T Fords, and computers should take up entire floors of office towers. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You don't get to be all "C'mon man" when you're the one who's ignoring practically everything we know about how technology works and evolves to try to drive home your point. Knock it off...lol... ;) Again, why are you so wildly opposed to this? It's barely debatable or controversial...new tech emerges, it gets perfected, and implemented, replacing older, more problematic tech. You might as well pine for the horse and buggy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The price of solar is plummeting and in many countries is already dramatically cheaper than coal, which is why the solar industry is booming and the coal industry is dying. The market sees it and you don't. Technology evolves. All of this is moot for you though because you deny the science outright so you don't see an issue in the first place.

Tell me, internet scientist, can humans pump an infinite amount of CO2 into the atmosphere without effect or is there a level where there will be consequences? What surprising or interesting conclusions have you discovered during your many years of climate research?
Click to expand...

CO2 is infinite ol' internet scientist? There is the same amount of carbon and oxygen on earth today as there was millions of years aho. At best humans simply recycle oxygen and plant matter converts CO2 back into O & C.

If you think there is too much CO2, two solutions. More trees, and less humans.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, that is the key to having electric vehicles (EVs) become popular for long(er) distance travel. Rather than have re-charging stations (that process can take quite a while) only the stations could have a battery swap capability assuming EVs used a standard battery and they were easily accessible. This is how I use my battery powered tools - I have extra batteries, already charged, to keep me going through the work day and then recharge the drained batteries during my off work time. Even if the batteries are EV model specific then EV dealers could provide that "swap and go" service.
Click to expand...

That may be an interim solution, though I don't think it's viable with current tech, as, if I remember correctly, these cars operate with banks of batteries, and swapping them out would be a pretty serious job, and not sure they have enough trunk space to hold the spares... I could be wrong, I'm currently remembering an electric super car config I saw on Top Gear, I'm assuming the average electric cars would be a bit less bulky, but not sure.

I expect what we'll see are batteries that you can go 1000 miles + with, so you only have to charge at the end of the day...combined with much faster charging options...but that's kind of the cool part, who knows at this point? It's also a cautionary thing...despite supporting the move to alternative energy sources, I agree with conservatives who feel maybe we're moving too fast on the implementation (aka "feel good") side. We need to pour everything into developing solid, sustainable tech before we go crazy trying to implement incomplete solutions on the tax payer's dime.
 
OlNate said:
You c'mon...lol... I have already said in this conversation that the landscape of power generation will be diverse, driven by local variables such as topography and weather patterns, and that there are currently problems with the tech as it is today, but those problems are being worked out, as the article I posted provides just one small example of.

Under your logic, we should all be still flying around in the Wright brothers original, and driving Model T Fords, and computers should take up entire floors of office towers. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You don't get to be all "C'mon man" when you're the one who's ignoring practically everything we know about how technology works and evolves to try to drive home your point. Knock it off...lol... ;) Again, why are you so wildly opposed to this? It's barely debatable or controversial...new tech emerges, it gets perfected, and implemented, replacing older, more problematic tech. You might as well pine for the horse and buggy.
Click to expand...

The real opposition to alternative energy comes from its distributed nature.

Which, by the way, is considered by the military to be more secure than a few big plants which could be taken out leaving us powerless.

Windfarm here, solar farm there, small hydro on that watershed, geothermal by that geyser.

Eggs in a lot of baskets simply aren't as profitable as big plants. Competition, etc.

Frankly, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that if somebody can't get pig rich off of a thing its not worth doing.

And we ****ed up massively letting the rest of the world develop alternative energy tech we had the advantage on because we were busy arguing about whether there was climate change and what was responsible instead of meeting obvious demand for the technology whether we believed it was warranted or not.
 
OlNate said:
You c'mon...lol... I have already said in this conversation that the landscape of power generation will be diverse, driven by local variables such as topography and weather patterns, and that there are currently problems with the tech as it is today, but those problems are being worked out, as the article I posted provides just one small example of.

Under your logic, we should all be still flying around in the Wright brothers original, and driving Model T Fords, and computers should take up entire floors of office towers. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You don't get to be all "C'mon man" when you're the one who's ignoring practically everything we know about how technology works and evolves to try to drive home your point. Knock it off...lol... ;) Again, why are you so wildly opposed to this? It's barely debatable or controversial...new tech emerges, it gets perfected, and implemented, replacing older, more problematic tech. You might as well pine for the horse and buggy.
Click to expand...

You linked an article about car batteries. We're talking wholesale power generation
 
Renae said:
You linked an article about car batteries. We're talking wholesale power generation
Click to expand...

It was to demonstrate that technology improves, which you know, so stop pouting. ;) It's ok to say "I'm wrong" from time to time, you know. I'll still think you're cool.
 
What if...? said:
The real opposition to alternative energy comes from its distributed nature.

Which, by the way, is considered by the military to be more secure than a few big plants which could be taken out leaving us powerless.

Windfarm here, solar farm there, small hydro on that watershed, geothermal by that geyser.

Eggs in a lot of baskets simply aren't as profitable as big plants. Competition, etc.

Frankly, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that if somebody can't get pig rich off of a thing its not worth doing.

And we ****ed up massively letting the rest of the world develop alternative energy tech we had the advantage on because we were busy arguing about whether there was climate change and what was responsible instead of meeting obvious demand for the technology whether we believed it was warranted or not.
Click to expand...

Agree, agree, agree, two more agrees, agree.

:)
 
blackjack50 said:
What matters most is how much money you donate to your local democrats to save the earth from global warming.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up the opposition to climate science. People so catastrophically uneducated that they think that Al Gore invented climate change and that it's a liberal conspiracy to enslave the masses. It's not the Democratic party that discovered that the climate is changing and that humans have an effect on it, it was the scientific community. If you feel your years of climate research contradict the scientific community, I suggest you publish your research to have it peer reviewed. There's a Nobel prize in your future.

jimbo said:
CO2 is infinite ol' internet scientist? There is the same amount of carbon and oxygen on earth today as there was millions of years aho. At best humans simply recycle oxygen and plant matter converts CO2 back into O & C.
If you think there is too much CO2, two solutions. More trees, and less humans.
Click to expand...

Climate is effected by atmospheric CO2 content, not the net CO2 in all parts of the earth including underground. Another solution you conveniently forgot was to stop digging up liquified dinosaurs out of the ground and burning them into the atmosphere.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This pretty much sums up the opposition to climate science. People so catastrophically uneducated that they think that Al Gore invented climate change and that it's a liberal conspiracy to enslave the masses. It's not the Democratic party that discovered that the climate is changing and that humans have an effect on it, it was the scientific community. If you feel your years of climate research contradict the scientific community, I suggest you publish your research to have it peer reviewed. There's a Nobel prize in your future.



Climate is effected by atmospheric CO2 content, not the net CO2 in all parts of the earth including underground. Another solution you conveniently forgot was to stop digging up liquified dinosaurs out of the ground and burning them into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

And another thing.

Stop ****ing burning all the cheap hydrocarbons we NEED to escape the gravity well and get this species out of our single petri dish.

At this rate we'll have burned up all the oil by the time we accept we have to move out or become extinct.

So we'll become extinct.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This pretty much sums up the opposition to climate science. People so catastrophically uneducated that they think that Al Gore invented climate change and that it's a liberal conspiracy to enslave the masses. It's not the Democratic party that discovered that the climate is changing and that humans have an effect on it, it was the scientific community. If you feel your years of climate research contradict the scientific community, I suggest you publish your research to have it peer reviewed. There's a Nobel prize in your future.



Climate is effected by atmospheric CO2 content, not the net CO2 in all parts of the earth including underground. Another solution you conveniently forgot was to stop digging up liquified dinosaurs out of the ground and burning them into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Those liquified dinosaurs, which were once air breathing carbon eating animals, get hauled up and used to manufacture the electricity to power electric cars, then the waste product is consumed by trees and turned back into liquified dinosaurs, and he cycle is complete. Zero net gain or loss of carbon, oxygen, or CO2.
 
jimbo said:
Those liquified dinosaurs, which were once air breathing carbon eating animals, get hauled up and used to manufacture the electricity to power electric cars, then the waste product is consumed by trees and turned back into liquified dinosaurs, and he cycle is complete. Zero net gain or loss of carbon, oxygen, or CO2.
Click to expand...

Lol, wtf, I'm sorry this is too stupid to entertain.
 
Visbek said:
Some rich and famous people can fly on a commercial flight without being harassed. DiCaprio is definitely not one of them.
Click to expand...

sure he could. first class, preferred boarding, etc. many actors do already.

Gore, contrary to right-wing distortions, does usually fly commercial.
Click to expand...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...r-envoy-his-32mm-climate-change-speech?page=1


and 14 car convoys.



Chances are slim that DiCaprio insisted on AC for the red carpet.
Click to expand...

splitting hairs. it's the overal concept.


Beyonce was mostly correct. Many scientists are now saying that storms like Harvey and Irma were made worse by climate change. Storm surges were higher because of climate change, raising sea levels; Harvey dumped more rain, because the Gulf was warmer, which put more water vapor into the atmosphere; it's even possible that the pressure systems which pinned down Harvey and drove Irma north are connected to climate change.
Click to expand...

NOAA disagrees and you are speculating, short on facts.


What climate change probably hasn't done is increase the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms. But there is general agreement that storms are just starting to get more intense and damaging because of climate change.
Click to expand...


But they haven't.


I'm not sure which Nye speech you're referring to.
Click to expand...



:lol: any of them
 
OlNate said:
It was to demonstrate that technology improves, which you know, so stop pouting. ;) It's ok to say "I'm wrong" from time to time, you know. I'll still think you're cool.
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong. Batteries cannot sustain power for a city.
 
Renae said:
I'm not wrong. Batteries cannot sustain power for a city.
Click to expand...

*Today's* batteries cannot sustain power for a city. No one is suggesting that. But your assertion that we shouldn't invest in solar tech *is* wrong, for all the reasons I've laid out before. For your logic to be correct, we'd have to stop science and technology at what we have today...which of course is not going to happen.

Sorry, friend, luddite mentality is never going to work on this subject. Too much money already invested, and too much tangible motivation (aka our environment's health and our own long term survival in any recognizable comparison to today). I support slowing down implementation, but only to divert funds into research, so that the implementations are more successful with better tech. That's about as much budge as you're going to get from me... :)
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This pretty much sums up the opposition to climate science. People so catastrophically uneducated that they think that Al Gore invented climate change and that it's a liberal conspiracy to enslave the masses. It's not the Democratic party that discovered that the climate is changing and that humans have an effect on it, it was the scientific community. If you feel your years of climate research contradict the scientific community, I suggest you publish your research to have it peer reviewed. There's a Nobel prize in your future.



Climate is effected by atmospheric CO2 content, not the net CO2 in all parts of the earth including underground. Another solution you conveniently forgot was to stop digging up liquified dinosaurs out of the ground and burning them into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Democrats didn't invent climate change. They found a way to profit off of it and politicize it and ignore any and all solutions and options that they don't profit off of. Heck. They found a way to act like they were doing something and actually doing nothing.

"Hey China you keep polluting as long as you want while we economically handicap ourselves for political points and massive donations to people who take the money and run and don't actually produce results."

Dude. This isn't about saving us from climate change. This has and always will be about money. And if democrats actually WANTED to save the world from climate change (which is hilarious btw given the known favors that cause climate change)...they would find economically efficient methods to replace oil and use the free market.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OlNate said:
*Today's* batteries cannot sustain power for a city. No one is suggesting that. But your assertion that we shouldn't invest in solar tech *is* wrong, for all the reasons I've laid out before. For your logic to be correct, we'd have to stop science and technology at what we have today...which of course is not going to happen.

Sorry, friend, luddite mentality is never going to work on this subject. Too much money already invested, and too much tangible motivation (aka our environment's health and our own long term survival in any recognizable comparison to today). I support slowing down implementation, but only to divert funds into research, so that the implementations are more successful with better tech. That's about as much budge as you're going to get from me... :)
Click to expand...
Betting on technology that might not even be possible is piss poor planning. However would would imagine fusion will be a thing before city powering capable batteries are a thing.
 
Renae said:
Betting on technology that might not even be possible is piss poor planning. However would would imagine fusion will be a thing before city powering capable batteries are a thing.
Click to expand...

I'd support that too! But having all eggs in one basket is what has gotten us in this mess to begin with. And not researching solutions (aka developing *all kinds* of tech) is voluntary ignorance, and I don't honestly believe you'd advocate for that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom