The Big Damn Scary Truth

From that article:

The best example is that while gasoline in the US cost $3.00 per gallon, in Europe that same gallon costs $6.00 or more.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen in America it's actually $4 / gallon, but regardless I doubt the difference with Europe is because of the dollar, it's actually because of TAXES:

Fuel tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare US and UK.

It does seem like this article decides its opinions, then looks for facts to support those opinions, which is rarely a sign of good writing.
 


mattseh said:
From that article:

From what I've seen in America it's actually $4 / gallon, but regardless I doubt the difference with Europe is because of the dollar, it's actually because of TAXES:

Fuel tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare US and UK.

It does seem like this article decides its opinions, then looks for facts to support those opinions, which is rarely a sign of good writing.
Click to expand...

If anything, your argument supports Luke's position. Comparably low taxes on a commodity in a sector = subsidization, which enables higher profit margins. And that's exactly what Luke / the article is saying.

I didn't have the time to read the full article, but I read that passage you quoted - and I do agree that that's not a correct assessment by the author.

The same that applies to all mainstream media applies to RT as well: take everything they say with a grain of salt. I've seen RT push its own flavor of propaganda and hype the (admittedly few) times I've watched it.
 
Ron Paul says AGW is a hoax, and that's good enough for me. I don't need to listen to no "climatologists."
 
Pseudo Nym said:
Ron Paul says AGW is a hoax, and that's good enough for me. I don't need to listen to no "climatologists."
Click to expand...

From your link Global Warming

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

And that's where he's wrong. The question is not who caused it. Stating that implies that as long as nature is the sole cause, it's ok if half of earth's population will be wiped out, because hey, after all, it's nature. Wasn't us.

The real question is what the effect of the global climate change will be. Well actually, it's already clear what the effect will be, eventually. Of course there are different opinions that all vary in graveness, but the general tendency is the same.

The second intelligent question is whether we can do anything to prevent the negative implications of the climate change, or at least reduce them. The answer to that is, again, yes. There's a whole lot we can do. Many countries in the world are gradually adopting to modern times and are implementing more and more measures.

And lol @ "what a politician says in an election year outweighs anything any qualified person ever said on the topic".

(<3 Ron Paul but not exactly in love with his opinion on this)
 
Beach Affiliate said:
I'm not here to argue with you and it should be evident from my post that I'm not:

so I'm not going to get into some huge back and forth with you. Believe what you want. I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy but I think it's important to point out that conspiracy theorists have a lot to gain by building a following, whether it's

1) Monetary (Alex Jones isn't struggling to pay the rent, that's for sure)

2) Ego (Don't discount the importance of a following to a "prophet")

Basically what I'm saying is to take this stuff with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

This 100%. Alex Jones is a pure-bred capitalist and nothing else, just look at how his website(s) are constructed. Designed with maximum profit potential in mind.
 
jacky8 said:
The world will probably transform when nuclear fusion is controlled and pushed everywhere
Click to expand...

Can be trashtalked into being dangerous just like anything else.

At the moment, fusion itself doesnt even have a positive roi. Once that problem is solved, there are others, like how to produce the fusion fuel on a large scale.

Fusion isnt a panacea just like fission wasnt.
 
bobsoap said:
From your link Global Warming



And that's where he's wrong. The question is not who caused it. Stating that implies that as long as nature is the sole cause, it's ok if half of earth's population will be wiped out, because hey, after all, it's nature. Wasn't us.

The real question is what the effect of the global climate change will be. Well actually, it's already clear what the effect will be, eventually. Of course there are different opinions that all vary in graveness, but the general tendency is the same.

The second intelligent question is whether we can do anything to prevent the negative implications of the climate change, or at least reduce them. The answer to that is, again, yes. There's a whole lot we can do. Many countries in the world are gradually adopting to modern times and are implementing more and more measures.

And lol @ "what a politician says in an election year outweighs anything any qualified person ever said on the topic".

(<3 Ron Paul but not exactly in love with his opinion on this)
Click to expand...

The question, whether global warming is man-made or not, is an important one, because people just assume that we could cure global warming.

A single mild volcano eruption shits out more energy than a shit-ton of hiroshima bombs. Treehug fags, in their ridiculous arrogance, believe that we can solve all of earths "problems" by just adjusting a couple screws.

The earth, as a whole, is a black body. Google that term. The amount of energy that comes in from the sun and the earths core are in equlibrium with the amount of energy that is radiated away. That is an effect that takes place on a celestial scale. You guys want to solve problems by shutting a couple oil refinerys down. Ridiculous.


The impact humanity has on this planet might seem huge, but if we were wiped off today, barely 100 years later, no visitor would notice that we have ever existed. Humanity barely scratches the surface. We can drill about 10 kilometres deep and throw some garbage into stationary orbits and thats the biggest achievements.

Some oil might be gone. Water can be refilled. Plastics in the sea will get metabolized by bacteria in no time. The sheer arrogance that the save the earth movement carries is ridiculous. Weve barely scratched the surface.


If carbon dioxide somehow has the ability to keep energy inside the atmosphere, could you try to explain to me how it doesnt have the same effect on incoming solar radiation?

And just because some retarded climatologists claim that earth heats up doesnt mean that its true. There are more than a couple theoretical physicists who say that its fundamentally impossible.
 
You guys want to know a secret?

The Toyota Prius at one time used cells of AA batteries to work as the battery backup.


NOTHING is preventing ANY SINGLE ONE OF YOU from developing your own EV car. There are forums full of people who have done it because they wanted to get away from oil.

The VAST majority of these conspiracy types are so stupid that they honestly believe that no one has a profit motive for making a vehicle.

The Nissan Leaf is a prime example. It uses the exact battery system you're talking about, a high endurance lithium ion system. It gets 100 miles per charge (more or less) and costs around $32,000 USD. The battery system accounts for more than 60% of the total cost of the vehicle. Believe it or not Lithium technology is very mature and still expensive as heck due to the low volume of REMs available.

Don't want to deal with lithium? Make a car and have it run off of gel cell deep cycles from you local walmart. There are plenty of videos on Youtube of people who have done just that. They're very cheap but pretty heavy.

Instead, people get online, complain about the "Evil oil companies taking our monies and jerbs" and do not do a SINGLE THING ABOUT IT.

Do you know there's a fuel out there that costs $1 per gallon , burns clean and is available in 70% of US towns? It costs less than a thousand dollars to convert any vehicle to and the fuel is made right here in the country. No one cares because every single one of these conspiracy theorists is so wrapped up in buying the next Iphone 4.2.1.1 version that they're just fine with buying $3.50 gasoline refined from Saudi crude. Americans need to change their priorities and then the oil companies will follow, not the other way around.
 
wayn3 said:
The earth, as a whole, is a black body. Google that term.
Click to expand...

Okay...

wikipedia said:
A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.
Click to expand...

Hm. This would seem to make your claim, on the face of it, false. After all, the Earth certainly doesn't appear black from space. It reflect quite a bit of light (electromagnetic radiation).

Also ran across this post: Earth Is Not a Black Body – reasonmclucus - My Telegraph

wayn3 said:
The amount of energy that comes in from the sun and the earths core are in equlibrium with the amount of energy that is radiated away.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the energy transfer says nothing about the temperature of the atmosphere.

wayn3 said:
The impact humanity has on this planet might seem huge, but if we were wiped off today, barely 100 years later, no visitor would notice that we have ever existed. Humanity barely scratches the surface. We can drill about 10 kilometres deep and throw some garbage into stationary orbits and thats the biggest achievements.
Click to expand...

Agreed; we're not very significant, in the scheme of things.

wayn3 said:
Some oil might be gone. Water can be refilled. Plastics in the sea will get metabolized by bacteria in no time. The sheer arrogance that the save the earth movement carries is ridiculous. Weve barely scratched the surface.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree with your sentiment here. We can and do change our environment in ways that significantly affect the Earth's biosphere (and everything in it, including us). The question is not whether the Earth, as a chunk of iron and rock, is going anywhere, but rather whether we are making this thin layer of air, water and dirt we live in less hospitable and more detrimental to life. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this is the case.

wayn3 said:
If carbon dioxide somehow has the ability to keep energy inside the atmosphere, could you try to explain to me how it doesnt have the same effect on incoming solar radiation?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the greenhouse effect was the result of greenhouse gasses decreasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere, thereby turning more of the sun's energy into heat which gets trapped in the Earth's atmosphere, rather than reflecting it back into space.
 
wayn3 said:
The earth, as a whole, is a black body. Google that term. The amount of energy that comes in from the sun and the earths core are in equlibrium with the amount of energy that is radiated away.
Click to expand...

There's actually been a cooling trend over the last 40 years in the amount of heat coming out of the sun.

Yes, the earth emits radiation back into the solar system. If the sun was all of the sudden three times as powerful, then the earth might emit three times the radiation back up, but the surface of the planet would still get fried.

Water can be refilled.
Click to expand...

It doesn't rain on the moon or Mars. Why is that?

If carbon dioxide somehow has the ability to keep energy inside the atmosphere, could you try to explain to me how it doesnt have the same effect on incoming solar radiation?
Click to expand...

:crap: The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 1800s and I thought the basics of it were taught in like 6th grade.
 
Pseudo Nym said:
Okay...



Hm. This would seem to make your claim, on the face of it, false. After all, the Earth certainly doesn't appear black from space. It reflect quite a bit of light (electromagnetic radiation).

Also ran across this post: Earth Is Not a Black Body – reasonmclucus - My Telegraph
Click to expand...

Journalists. Same crowd that expect the CERN to create miniblackholes that eat chunks of our precious little planet. White bodies dont reflect all radiation. Black bodies dont absorb all radiation (other than the idealized physics object). The electromagnetic spectrum is top heavy. Just because the planet appears blue in space doesnt mean it cant be approximized well by a black body. The sun is a black body as well, doesnt have much to do with the color that is visible to the human eye.

Journalists take the liberty to oversimplify stuff that they might have read somewhere or completely made up and leave the impression that they are somehow experts on topics they didnt take the introductory classes in high school to.


Pseudo Nym said:
Well, I don't agree with your sentiment here. We can and do change our environment in ways that significantly affect the Earth's biosphere (and everything in it, including us). The question is not whether the Earth, as a chunk of iron and rock, is going anywhere, but rather whether we are making this thin layer of air, water and dirt we live in less hospitable and more detrimental to life. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this is the case.
Click to expand...

We can obviously ruin the biosphere. All it takes is a couple tons of really awful toxic waste. Short term destruction is easy to achieve. Its way harder to keep the atmosphere at a certain temperature against mother natures will. Even if that whole greenhouse gases theory is correct, our contribution to it is just a small percentage of the overall picture.

There are so many possible disasters that nature, as a whole, can throw our way, that we are completely unable to prevent, on a fundamental level. From asteroids and solar flares and gamma ray bursts to the whole yellowstone park erupting, to possibly normal cold/hot cycles that earth goes through. Reducing a carbon footprint is such a funny idea.


Pseudo Nym said:
I was under the impression that the greenhouse effect was the result of greenhouse gasses decreasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere, thereby turning more of the sun's energy into heat which gets trapped in the Earth's atmosphere, rather than reflecting it back into space.
Click to expand...


The pictures that were shown to me when I was a kid and this stuff was a hot topic went like this:

Sun radiation enters through the layer that contains clouds, gets reflected by earth and leaves through that same layer. Now evil C02 gets introduced and the rays that would just leave through that layer would instead be reflected back to earth.

Youre claiming that greenhouse gases reduce the reflectivity so that more energy enters the system.

Either way, Im wondering why the reduction in energy relief is a one-way street.



There are, in my opinion, general inconsistencies with your idea of radiation and reflection, that I dont want to get into because Im about to go to bed. At the moment, I dont see how introducing a certain gas into the atmosphere could reduce its reflectivity. Especially since C02 isnt new to the atmosphere, all we might be able to do is increase its concentration by a couple permille. Ive just tried to find the spectrum of C02 but I cant because the serps are full of climate bs instead of useful data.
 
schockergd said:
You guys want to know a secret?

The Toyota Prius at one time used cells of AA batteries to work as the battery backup.


NOTHING is preventing ANY SINGLE ONE OF YOU from developing your own EV car. There are forums full of people who have done it because they wanted to get away from oil.

The VAST majority of these conspiracy types are so stupid that they honestly believe that no one has a profit motive for making a vehicle.

The Nissan Leaf is a prime example. It uses the exact battery system you're talking about, a high endurance lithium ion system. It gets 100 miles per charge (more or less) and costs around $32,000 USD. The battery system accounts for more than 60% of the total cost of the vehicle. Believe it or not Lithium technology is very mature and still expensive as heck due to the low volume of REMs available.

Don't want to deal with lithium? Make a car and have it run off of gel cell deep cycles from you local walmart. There are plenty of videos on Youtube of people who have done just that. They're very cheap but pretty heavy.

Instead, people get online, complain about the "Evil oil companies taking our monies and jerbs" and do not do a SINGLE THING ABOUT IT.

Do you know there's a fuel out there that costs $1 per gallon , burns clean and is available in 70% of US towns? It costs less than a thousand dollars to convert any vehicle to and the fuel is made right here in the country. No one cares because every single one of these conspiracy theorists is so wrapped up in buying the next Iphone 4.2.1.1 version that they're just fine with buying $3.50 gasoline refined from Saudi crude. Americans need to change their priorities and then the oil companies will follow, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

true, when I used to believe in peak oil I wanted to make one too.
 
wayn3 said:
Even if that whole greenhouse gases theory is correct, our contribution to it is just a small percentage of the overall picture.
Click to expand...

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

evidence_CO2.jpg



The pictures that were shown to me when I was a kid and this stuff was a hot topic went like this:

Sun radiation enters through the layer that contains clouds, gets reflected by earth and leaves through that same layer. Now evil C02 gets introduced and the rays that would just leave through that layer would instead be reflected back to earth.

Youre claiming that greenhouse gases reduce the reflectivity so that more energy enters the system.

Either way, Im wondering why the reduction in energy relief is a one-way street.
Click to expand...

SHORTWAVE radiation comes down from the sun, LONGWAVE radiation goes back up. CO2 better blocks longwave than it does shortwave.
 
Nice article.
If you think that the USA is fighting wars only for its moral conscience you're probably 3 years old. The US is not all evil, and go into wars when there is the moral and the financial incentive and does it for itself.

I hope that the day would not come that Americans will wake up to a real crisis, one that would really change lives, because this is one nation that got used to being very comfortable.

Global warming - I don't think anyone saying that it is not true, just that it is not man made, and global warming, just as cooling, has nothing to do with us (so far at least), and I seriously think that this is right and true. But hi, maybe I just don't feel like paying those happy global warming taxes, that are somehow used to fixing the global weather system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom