SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  What's Your Deal!    [Scoff!] "Climate Change"
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
[Scoff!] "Climate Change" Login/Join 
Conservative Behind
Enemy Lines
Picture of synthplayer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blume9mm:
Speaking of travel... I heard that back in the 1800's the range for courting was about 12 miles... that's as far as one could go on a horse... spend time with your lady and then travel home in a day.

Times have changed....

I don't totally disagree with most of you anti electrics views but I wonder. what you would have been saying 120+ years ago about these new fangled machines that used a highly flammable liquid to get from one place to another.....

"dern horseless carrages .... loud... they will burst into flame.... no body needs to travel that far. 20-40 miles... and especially that fast 20mph. And where do you get the fuel? "


No tyrannical government passed any laws against using horses, though, did they? The transition from horse-drawn equipment to combustion engine driven equipment was voluntary. That is the difference here.



I found what you said riveting.
 
Posts: 10433 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: June 06, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fourth line skater
Picture of goose5
posted Hide Post
They history of man and energy goes something like this. Burning wood was the first, and the next was coal. We didn't run out of wood. Coal was abundant and relatively cheap to usher in the steam engine era. Now moving vehicles transitioned from coal and liquid petro chemicals. We certainly didn't run out of coal. Large scale power creation should have gone to nuclear by now if it wasn't for man's folly.

Now each and every one of these transitions have two things in common. 1. The energy mass per unit went up each time a transition was made. 2. The new energy was economically viable at some point.

Now with the left insisting on wholesale transition to renewables they are asking for us to return to using an energy mass on the order of wood in the case of solar. Total grids running on renewables will never happen. Because its impossible. I think its about directing the money to where they want it for maximum return to campaign coffers. Al Gore has a green company that's worth 37 billion. He takes 2 million off the top every month. How? My sister in law works for one of these carbon credit places out of Boulder. Has for the last 15 years. She still can't explain to me how they make money. Its all supporting one of the largest money making scams in human history.


_________________________
OH, Bonnie McMurray!
 
Posts: 7023 | Location: Pueblo, CO | Registered: July 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of ridewv
posted Hide Post
My friend works indirectly on CO2 capture. Various departments Dept of Energy and others are paying huge sums to companies to capture, transport, and sequester it. Only problem is like ethanol, the process is energy intensive with a net negative. In capturing CO2, more is created than was captured and sequestered. Complete folly and everyone involved knows it "but hey if Big Green is going to pay us to do this we'll take it."


No car is as much fun to drive, as any motorcycle is to ride.
 
Posts: 6332 | Location: Northern WV | Registered: January 17, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fourth line skater
Picture of goose5
posted Hide Post
From what I understand CO2 is what the oil companies in concert with fracking are using to revive the west Texas oil fields. I think Occidental Petroleum is leading in this field.


_________________________
OH, Bonnie McMurray!
 
Posts: 7023 | Location: Pueblo, CO | Registered: July 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of ridewv
posted Hide Post
Correct they are using some for fracking. Ironically they may be getting paid to do so, I need to check.


No car is as much fun to drive, as any motorcycle is to ride.
 
Posts: 6332 | Location: Northern WV | Registered: January 17, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
what I don't get is I remember being taught in school that plants 'breath' CO2.... so, would not us putting more in the atmosphere be a good thing for them? I realize that even though Carbon Dioxide is not poisonous if you get too much it displaces the oxygen that we do need,.. (Remember the movie Apollo 13?). still I'm having a problem with this "too much CO2 being released".. now as for the real crap we are still spewing out...
 
Posts: 3482 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fourth line skater
Picture of goose5
posted Hide Post
Yes, CO2 benefits plants and its beginning to be noticed.

quote:
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...ation-greening-earth

Environmentalists are quick to try and deflect stating no, no, no this is due to Chinese farming and aggressive tree planting campaigns.

I've been talking about CO2 capture methods and how businesses are beginning to employ such methods at significant cost. Its really interesting and innovating stuff. Do I think its necessary to cut man's emissions? No, I don't.

We are responsible for 4 percent of CO2. Total CO2 is .04 percent of the atmosphere. If we were to shut it all down it would make little difference.

So what's going on? Decades of the media beating this drum has more and more people believing. To the point the Republican party is beginning to listen. Now some (Ben Shapiro) cede the point that man's CO2 is causing it, but they part ways on what to do. They support innovation and technology solutions because most of this is coming from oil companies and subsidiaries, and that's who tend to support them. The oil companies are doing this because they see how the population is moving, and they want their companies in 50 years. Democrats support lock down, regulation, government, and forcing renewables down our throats because those are the people who support them. Its not about the problem. It's about money. Billions of dollars worth.

To solve this problem it means giving up one of their largest money raising apparatuses every devised by the political class.


_________________________
OH, Bonnie McMurray!
 
Posts: 7023 | Location: Pueblo, CO | Registered: July 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by goose5:
It's about money.
That and power (not the energy kind).

As for money, I read the other day that Algore's company is worth $37 billion dollars. That should be criminal.


________________________________________________________
"Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton.
 
Posts: 18519 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  What's Your Deal!    [Scoff!] "Climate Change"

© SIGforum 2023