Do conservatives have to reject global climate change to be conservatives?

[GenSeneca]

Why is it you can figure out how to properly quote Pocket but not me?

They are designed to be recycled

Lead, nickle, lithium, cadmium and other metals used in the fabrication of batteries don't just mine and refine themselves.

Oh, and lots of people (and municipalities) already happily drive them.

Not enough to please you.

Nuclear is certainly NOT the only "green" technology

I said it was clean, not "green", and it is the only alternative energy source that doesn't suffer from one or more of the problems I listed... Which you totally skipped.

Other green technologies that are actually green include solar, hydroelectric (though it has over environmental concerns), and wind power.

I know, I mentioned all of them... Do you even read my posts before replying with this nonsense? All of those technologies suffer from one, or more, of the drawbacks I listed which prevents them being able to replace traditional energy sources.

Among other pllutiants released from tail pipes and flue stacks, yes.

I just want to be perfectly clear, you do believe that CO2 is a pollutant... Yes?

And we can only continue to be world leaders if we transition to the use of more alternative energy sources. If we don't, you can bet the bank that the Chinese or someone else will.

We need to adopt a more expensive and less reliable source of energy in order to remain a world leader... If we don't, someone else will use more expensive and less reliable sources of energy and become the world leader. I guess if you voted for Obama that kind of logic makes sense.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you sure that Durkin is not another Michael Moore, but with a different agenda?

Do you even know who Bill Butler is? How do you know he's not the Micheal Moore? One clue as to the man's insanity is the claim on his website that New Orleans flooded because we spent all that levee money in Iraq...

Nope, no agenda there...

As I said to your new best friend, when it comes to criticizing AGW, you don't consider anyone to be qualified to do so and you don't see any argument made as being legitimate... However, any douchebag with a web page can post whatever he wants in support of AGW and you guys never once question whether he's qualified to say what he does or even if what he says is true!

It would be nice if you scrutinized the supporters of AGW, and the claims they make, as rigidly as you scrutinize the opponents of AGW and the claims they make. But we both know that's not going to happen... You will continue to rigidly scrutinize "deniers" while blindly accepting any claims made by supporters.

It really is a religion for you people...

Can you actually prove that CO2 causes global warming?

From all I've seen, you admit you don't understand the science that explains it, you just accept it because the "consensus" says it's true, and attack anyone who disagrees as being "anti-science".

Bueller... Bueller...

 

[orogenicman]

"Lead, nickle, lithium, cadmium and other metals used in the fabrication of batteries don't just mine and refine themselves."

This is true. Humans do that. Humans also can and often do recycle them. You cannot recycle burned fossil fuels.

 

[orogenicman]

"Not enough to please you. "

Do you have a problem with conservation?

 

[orogenicman]

"I said it was clean, not "green", and it is the only alternative energy source that doesn't suffer from one or more of the problems I listed... Which you totally skipped."

Is disposing of radioactive waste not a problem?

 

[orogenicman]

"All of those technologies suffer from one, or more, of the drawbacks I listed which
prevents them being able to replace traditional energy sources."

No one is suggesting that any of these technologies in their current states can fully replace fossil fuels. They certainly can put a substantial dent in our reliance on dirty energy sources. And there is no reason why we can't continue working to make them even more efficient so we use even less fossil fuels. But let me ask you a question. Do you want to see this country reduce it's dependence on foreign oil? If so, how are we going to do this without increasing our usage of alternative energy sources and becoming more energy efficient. Because simply drilling more wells is not going to do it. We do not have the reserves to pull it off, nor can we afford any more BP disasters.

 

[orogenicman]

"I just want to be perfectly clear, you do believe that CO2 is a pollutant... Yes?"

What is a pollutant?

A pollutant is a substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Now, CO2 emitted by human sources can certainly be considered to be a pollutant, since it does all those things. If you add enough CO2 to an aquarium, the fish are going to die of anoxia. And that certainly is harmful to the life in it (although,as we know, cyanobacteria love the stuff, but they also take oxygen out of the water when they bloom uncontrollably. In high enough concentrations, CO2 also kills humans. But the usage of the concept of CO2 as a pollutant in enviromental circles has to do with what it does to the planet as a whole. As a greenhouse gas in equalibrium with other gases in the atmosphere, it acts as a controlled greenhouse gas that beneficially warms the planet. Were it not for greenhouse gases such as CO2, the planet likely would be frozen over. Too much CO2 and other greenhose gases causes harm to our environment just like any other pollutant does, and so yes I do consider manmade CO2 released into the atmosphere as a waste product of manmade processes to be a pollutant.

 

[orogenicman]

"We need to adopt a more expensive and less reliable source of energy in order to remain a world leader... If we don't, someone else will use more expensive and less reliable sources of energy and become the world leader. I guess if you voted for Obama that kind of logic makes sense."

If you follow the Republican mantra that clean energy is bad for you, I can see where that makes sense. The expense comes at the front end. In other words, it may cost more to build a wind farm because there aren't many of them built yet, then it does to build a coal-fired power plant, the technology for such already readily available off the shelf by the dozen. But the back end is much cheaper. It costs much less to maintain a wind farm due to the fact that they generate no pollution than it does to maintain a coal-fired plant. And the energy from a wind farm or a solar power plant is free, while the energy from a coal-fired plant is very expensive in terms of economic and environmental costs associated with mining it, transporting it, burning it, and waste disposal.

 

[GenSeneca]

Do you have a problem with conservation?

You complained there weren't enough people driving hybrids... Exactly how many people need to drive hybrids before you stop b*tching?

[Alternatives] certainly can put a substantial dent in our reliance on dirty energy sources.

U.S. Energy Sources
Oil 40%
Natural gas 22%
Coal 23%
Nuclear 8%
Renewable Engery 7%

It should be noted that 2.47% of "Renewable" energy comes from burning wood and waste (not exactly clean or green). Wind is 0.56%, Solar comes in at 0.09%, Hydro is 2.5% and falling (Thanks to anti-dam Environmentalists), Geothermal has pretty well maxed out at 0.36%, Biomass comes in at 3.8% but 2.47% of that is wood and waste...

So please explain how these sources can "put a substantial dent" in our reliance on traditional energy sources. Also explain how you propose to get around the NIMBY crowd.

Do you want to see this country reduce it's dependence on foreign oil? If so, how are we going to do this without increasing our usage of alternative energy sources and becoming more energy efficient.

I don't care about our "dependence" on foreign oil. The solution to our energy problems, and just about all other problems, resides in the free market, not government.

nor can we afford any more BP disasters.

How does eliminating domestic oil sources reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Or do you also not care about our "dependence" on foreign oil?

CO2 emitted by human sources can certainly be considered to be a pollutant

CO2 is a pollutant only when emitted by human sources... Nature's production of CO2 is not a pollutant, but human production of CO2 is. Again, just wan to be perfectly clear exactly what you believe concerning CO2.

It costs much less to maintain a wind farm due to the fact that they generate no pollution than it does to maintain a coal-fired plant.

Bottom line is, wind and solar are not cost effective. If I were at home I could go through this with more detail but in the meantime, you still haven't answered the problem of reliability.

When the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine, in sufficient quantities to maintain the power grid, a back up power plant must take up the slack. These back up systems use reliable energy technology, such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Too much or too little power causes damage to the grid. Point being, even if you build a massive wind/solar farm, you still require a traditional power plant to supplement, or entirely supply, the power necessary to maintain the grid. This greatly adds to the cost of supplying "green" energy because you have to build and maintain both the "green" source and a traditional power plant.

 

[PLC1]

Do you even know who Bill Butler is? How do you know he's not the Micheal Moore? One clue as to the man's insanity is the claim on his website that New Orleans flooded because we spent all that levee money in Iraq...

Nope, no agenda there...

As I said to your new best friend, when it comes to criticizing AGW, you don't consider anyone to be qualified to do so and you don't see any argument made as being legitimate... However, any douchebag with a web page can post whatever he wants in support of AGW and you guys never once question whether he's qualified to say what he does or even if what he says is true!

It would be nice if you scrutinized the supporters of AGW, and the claims they make, as rigidly as you scrutinize the opponents of AGW and the claims they make. But we both know that's not going to happen... You will continue to rigidly scrutinize "deniers" while blindly accepting any claims made by supporters.

It really is a religion for you people...

Can you actually prove that CO2 causes global warming?

From all I've seen, you admit you don't understand the science that explains it, you just accept it because the "consensus" says it's true, and attack anyone who disagrees as being "anti-science".

Bueller... Bueller...

an actor, and a politician. yep. Their opinions are the ones we want to listen to, sure. Forget all of those nerdy scientists with their uncool PhDs. They're just a bunch of marxists, you know, wanting to establish a world government and wipe out our liberty.

Moderate voices? Reason? Who wants to listen to that? That's no fun

 

[GenSeneca]

Forget all of those nerdy scientists with their uncool PhDs.

Name one scientist who opposes AGW that you consider to be qualified as offering legitimate opposition...

You can't, can you?

You've been trained to have a knee-jerk reaction that anyone, including scientists, who oppose AGW must be ignoring science and following an agenda to come to a conclusion different from your own.

I have no doubt there are scientists who support AGW because they really believe it's true, not because of an agenda. I've never heard an AGW believer say the same thing about those who oppose AGW... To the AGW believer, anyone who dissents is dismissed and ridiculed.

Possible explanations for this can be found in Cognitive Biases:

Bandwagon effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same.

Bias blind spot – the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people.

Confirmation bias – the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

Expectation bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.

Semmelweis reflex – the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm.

Availability cascade – a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").

Observer-expectancy effect – when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it.

Stereotyping – expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.

False consensus effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.

Herd instinct – common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict.

Goes a long way to explain why AGW is so firmly entrenched in the minds of believers and why they are so vociferous in their refusal to consider dissenting opinions and science.

 

[Gipper]

Libs will believe whatever the lib elitists tell them to believe. The elites with their phDs must know what they are talking about...so thinks the mindless lib.

They are drones.

 

[orogenicman]

"You complained there weren't enough people driving hybrids... Exactly how many people need to drive hybrids before you stop b*tching?"

This does not answer my question as to whether you have a problem with conservation, does it? Or maybe it does, eh?

 

[orogenicman]

"U.S. Energy Sources
Oil 40%
Natural gas 22%
Coal 23%
Nuclear 8%
Renewable Engery 7%

It should be noted that 2.47% of "Renewable" energy comes from burning wood and waste (not exactly clean or green). Wind is 0.56%, Solar comes in at 0.09%, Hydro is 2.5% and falling (Thanks to anti-dam Environmentalists), Geothermal has pretty well maxed out at 0.36%, Biomass comes in at 3.8% but 2.47% of that is wood and waste...

So please explain how these sources can "put a substantial dent" in our reliance on traditional energy sources. Also explain how you propose to get around the NIMBY crowd."

How has geothermal maxed out when very few people are using it? You don't need a volcano to use geothermal energy. You just need a thermal gradient.

It should be noted that most alternative energy sources have barely begun to be tapped, particularly hydrogen, but also wind and solar. Nuclear is also an option that hasn't seen it's full potential, but personally I don't like that option.

 

[orogenicman]

"I don't care about our "dependence" on foreign oil. The solution to our energy problems, and just about all other problems, resides in the free market, not government."

So you are only interested in the bottom line, not necessarily what is good for the country. Got it. By the by, who said that the free market can't sustain alternative energy?