[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm just trying to figure out whether the sluggishness of your political peers coming around to global warming (and possibly Russian interference in the election if in the fullness of time this evolves the same way) is just a matter of pride in not wanting to acknowledge that some people they mocked in the past were right, or whether this is some sort of war against science and/or intellectual authority as some claim.

Most libertarians are on board with the idea that people pollute too much, we just differ on the amount of gov't intervention required to deal with it.

It's really amazing. As Obama put it, if 99 out of 100 doctors say that we should stop eating donuts and bacon in mass quantities do we think this is some sort of global conspiracy, or something to other disbelieve and blow off? Of course not, so why do some people do this with scientific consensus whether this is global warming, vaccines are a good thing, the world is more than 6000 years old, etc.? Religion? Pride? Stupidity? Persuasion of corporate interests?
Something else? Some combination of things?

I just don't get it. Based on Chongo's comments about cows and past comments from Badkosh it seems like they *still* don't buy into global warming. What is going on here? What will it take? He is far from the only one (see: entire Trump administration), I'm just using them as an example.

Whatever this is, it's as frustrating as ****. We can disagree on abortion and economics, but why on Earth is global warming a political issue STILL? Somebody in here (Dakar, I think) theorized profit motives, but how has this fooled people for this long? I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't debating global warming 15 years ago or more, and that is one hell of a long time.

I feel the same way about fundamentalist Islam. If 99 out 100 terror attacks are carried out by Islamic Jihadists, enough for new attacks to make the news every day, why is it so hard for some people to condemn Islam? Fear of not being inclusive enough? Stupidity? Misplaced guilt? Seeing how predominantly Muslim countries treat women (like cattle), gays (they murder them), people who leave Islam (they murder them too), and pretty much anyone who isn't Muslim (they're codified as 2nd class humans), I just don't get it.

Whatever it is, it's frustrating as ****. Why on Earth is this toxic religion defended by most on the Left? If Islamists can't even tolerate someone right to simply exist (51% of US Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal) why do they deserve any support at all? And defending those who practice female genital mutilation? WTF?! It hurts my brain to even contemplate how shit like this can happen.

[besson3c]

I don't know where you get these narratives from, and why you let them get you so riled up without questioning whether or not they are colored by the unusual world you inhabit.

I have not heard the left defending these practices much. In fact, you conservative types like to claim that people on the left are godless. Why would the atheists/heathens/godless within the left defend any religion? You're familiar with Bill Maher's take on Islam, aren't you?

The problem with the left is that it is very fragmented and disorganized. There are those that believe:

- whatever it takes to keep the peace (including not shitting on moderate Islamic followers and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, where the baby is these followers that don't seem to be causing a disproportionate amount of trouble in society)

- don't really have time for any religion, especially a religion that seems to bring out the worst in people (this is my take on Maher's belief system in a nutshell)

- maybe have some particular academic argument about Islam that can be characterized as defending parts of the religion, like a Reza Aslan

- Islam is no worse than any other religion


You seem to be taking the "no worse than any other religion" population and thinking that it accounts for a popular belief system. I just don't see that. I see far more of the other types, particularly the first two.

I don't think you can argue that the anti-global warming crowd is a similarly small population, because he were are 198090234 years later still debating this shit, and here we are with an administration that is pretty openly a disbeliever of this science.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Whatever it is, it's frustrating as ****. Why on Earth is this toxic religion defended by most on the Left? If Islamists can't even tolerate someone right to simply exist (51% of US Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal) why do they deserve any support at all? And defending those who practice female genital mutilation? WTF?! It hurts my brain to even contemplate how shit like this can happen.

Why? Because Obama decide Islam, and Shia Islam in particular, is an oppressed religion. One cannot contradict Obama without suffering the consequences.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Why? Because Obama decide Islam, and Shia Islam in particular, is an oppressed religion. One cannot contradict Obama without suffering the consequences.

Speaking of being disconnected...

I don't understand your view of the world at all. I mean, you might as well be my cat. Are you my cat? How on Earth did you get here?

Obama is all about that first category of trying to keep the peace.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't think you can argue that the anti-global warming crowd is a similarly small population, because he were are 198090234 years later still debating this shit, and here we are with an administration that is pretty openly a disbeliever of this science.

Apparently you didn't get the memo. Since the warming trend ended and a cooling trend started, it's "man made climate change" now.

The earth has gone though these cycles for billions of years. The question is whether or not human activity is the sole cause for these recent changes. This ignores sunspot activity and volcanic (surface and on the ocean floor) eruptions, not to mention urban heat islands where some weather stations were relocated to. There also are allegations that much of the data was falsified.

I mention cows because CA passed a law regulating methane emissions from livestock to combat climate change. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Apparently you didn't get the memo. Since the warming trend ended and a cooling trend started, it's "man made climate change" now.

The earth has gone though these cycles for billions of years. The question is whether or not human activity is the sole cause for these recent changes. This ignores sunspot activity and volcanic (surface and on the ocean floor) eruptions, not to mention urban heat islands where some weather stations were relocated to. There also are allegations that much of the data was falsified.

I mention cows because CA passed a law regulating methane emissions from livestock to combat climate change. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2

So, TL;DR: "don't listen to the majority of climate scientists who agree on this stuff, I know better, you should pay attention to some (religious) guy on the internet instead".

I'm going to go with the scientists, thank you. You should too.

[subego]

So, since we all want to save the environment, nuclear is a great idea, right?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, since we all want to save the environment, nuclear is a great idea, right?

That falls into the NIMBY group. Solar and wind farms, hydroelectric dams, geothermal and so on. Zero emissions, zero fuel used for the non nuclear to produce electricity, but they can be an eyesore. People want them, just not near them.

There is a section of I40 east of Kingman where the wind blows continually that is a perfect spot for a wind farm. What will happen is that there wil be the NIMBY crowd (Martha's vineyard comes to mind), and the groups who will protest because birds may be chopped up by the spinning blades.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know where you get these narratives from, and why you let them get you so riled up without questioning whether or not they are colored by the unusual world you inhabit.

I have not heard the left defending these practices much. In fact, you conservative types like to claim that people on the left are godless. Why would the atheists/heathens/godless within the left defend any religion? You're familiar with Bill Maher's take on Islam, aren't you?

Bill is almost a lone island of sanity regarding Islam compared to so many others on the Left. As for "my conservative type", I fully support your right to be "godless", or whatever you want to be, provided you aren't hurting anyone else. In fact, given what you just said, it's plain you don't understand what "my type" is at all, so why make comments like that in the first place? Even the most strident Christians don't want to murder you for not accepting their religion, unlike fundamentalist Islamists, and they certainly aren't blowing others up to get into heaven and that type of nonsense. The only reason I can see the Left goes to bat for Islam is because most of its adherents are brown, and the amount of oppression points gained for having a darker skin color overrides the unbelievably shitty things their religion does.

The problem with the left is that it is very fragmented and disorganized. There are those that believe:

- whatever it takes to keep the peace (including not shitting on moderate Islamic followers and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, where the baby is these followers that don't seem to be causing a disproportionate amount of trouble in society)

We've passed that mark, the amount of horrible things done in the name of Islam has overcome any rational person's ability to bite their tongue to keep the peace. Plainly put, the more tolerance that's shown, the more violent fundamentalist muslims become.

- don't really have time for any religion, especially a religion that seems to bring out the worst in people (this is my take on Maher's belief system in a nutshell)

- maybe have some particular academic argument about Islam that can be characterized as defending parts of the religion, like a Reza Aslan

Of late that's a shrinking percentage of progressives, as more and more pile on due to the migrant crisis. http://www.salon.com/2016/10/29/libe...-is-deafening/

- Islam is no worse than any other religion

That excuse bewilders me the most, it's entirely batshit insane.

You seem to be taking the "no worse than any other religion" population and thinking that it accounts for a popular belief system. I just don't see that. I see far more of the other types, particularly the first two.

No, I'm saying that their inhumane practices are being ignored, or worse, even defended, due to their ethnicity and skin color, and there are far more who believe Islam is no worse than Christianity than you think.

I don't think you can argue that the anti-global warming crowd is a similarly small population, because he were are 198090234 years later still debating this shit, and here we are with an administration that is pretty openly a disbeliever of this science.

The leftist, pro-Islam crowd is much larger than the anti-GW crowd, and they have a much louder bullhorn (the entire Left Wing media). So while our environment is becoming worse and will eventually become catastrophic, we currently have crazed muslim radicals murdering people in the streets by the dozens, using anything they can get their hands on.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, since we all want to save the environment, nuclear is a great idea, right?

IMO, it's the best out there. We can just use the vast, empty areas of the midwest and turn them into nuclear power facilities... or at least we could, if it weren't for the fact the Yellowstone caldera is going to explode at some point in the next 5-50 years.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

IMO, it's the best out there. We can just use the vast, empty areas of the midwest and turn them into nuclear power facilities... or at least we could, if it weren't for the fact the Yellowstone caldera is going to explode at some point in the next 5-50 years.

Maybe something's changed, but I think in general they need to be sorta close to where the power's getting used.

Around here the problem is we're on a fault line, so there's a (pretty low) probability we could get hit with a truly epic earthquake.

Everything would be so ****ed by that anyways, I say we risk it.

Cos I'm green and shit.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Shit, I was thinking about Yellowstone, that's going to change climatologist forecasts, isn't it? Heh.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, TL;DR: "don't listen to the majority of climate scientists who agree on this stuff, I know better, you should pay attention to some (religious) guy on the internet instead".

I'm going to go with the scientists, thank you. You should too.

In this particular case it's not some religious people, it's his 7th grade teacher. Remember.

Should still probably go with the climate scientists though.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

IMO, it's the best out there. We can just use the vast, empty areas of the midwest and turn them into nuclear power facilities... or at least we could, if it weren't for the fact the Yellowstone caldera is going to explode at some point in the next 5-50 years.

or 1,000 to 10,000 as like you know, scientists think.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/volcanoqa.htm
still too short for stowing nuclear waste though.

I had no idea that renewables were coming on so strong. Last week we hit a peak in the UK of over 50% of the country running on renewables. Obviously this doesn't work so good in the dark or cold, yet but it seems smart to bet on massive improvements in this and big batteries a la Tesla rather than ending up with vast tracts of glow in the dark countryside?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Obviously this doesn't work so good in the dark...

...glow in the dark countryside?

Problem meet solution.

[Chongo]

Palo Verde NGS is west of Phoenix. I doesn't glow at night.

[subego]

Are there any natural disasters the region suffers from which could take out a nuke plant?

As an aside, do they call it the countryside there?

[andi*pandi]

earthquake? sandworms?

[subego]

New Mexico has Mongolian death worms, but they're tiny, and only spit acid and lightning.

[Chongo]

There is a danger from Chupacabra attacks.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

or 1,000 to 10,000 as like you know, scientists think.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/volcanoqa.htm
still too short for stowing nuclear waste though.

I had no idea that renewables were coming on so strong. Last week we hit a peak in the UK of over 50% of the country running on renewables. Obviously this doesn't work so good in the dark or cold, yet but it seems smart to bet on massive improvements in this and big batteries a la Tesla rather than ending up with vast tracts of glow in the dark countryside?

Thanks, but that's not really how it works, so we're both wrong. Scientists rate according to probability; there's a 10% chance it'll happen within 80 years, 50% chance within 400 years, 90% it'll happen within 1,000, and an almost 100% chance (99.91%) within 10,000 years. While certainly not definite, at all, a 10% chance of eruption within 80 years is far too likely for us to place reactors near it.

http://naturalsociety.com/yellowston...80-years-6715/

Where's the electricity to fill those monster batteries going to come from? They don't magically fill themselves.

[andi*pandi]

All that flat space in the midwest would also make an excellent wind or solar farm.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

All that flat space in the midwest would also make an excellent wind or solar farm.

Unfortunately, the longer the distance between where it's generated and where it's used, the greater the transmission loss.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

One idea that was floating around was to have a tiny thorium reactor in every home, but that's not realistic. However, I do believe that hydrogen fuel cells are quite feasible. One unit the size of a water heater can produce enough power for the average household indefinitely. I've been entirely off the grid for years now, with practically zero maintenance costs.

The main difficulty with making this a reality for everyone is the availability of hydrogen itself. Despite it being the most plentiful element in the universe, separating it from everything else is quite difficult (and expensive). However, that's just economics of scale. If we focused on making it a top priority, we'd have all supply issues licked in a matter of decades.

[Chongo]

Hydrogen always brings this to mind.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yeah, static-charged bags of fuel are dangerous, who knew??

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Where's the electricity to fill those monster batteries going to come from? They don't magically fill themselves.

No they don't but if decidedly non sunny UK can manage 50% renewable now, with lets face it shitty tec, then it's not inconceivable that in a decade or so we ca be running at over 100% and storing the extra in those monster batteries?

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Thanks, but that's not really how it works, so we're both wrong. Scientists rate according to probability; there's a 10% chance it'll happen within 80 years, 50% chance within 400 years, 90% it'll happen within 1,000, and an almost 100% chance (99.91%) within 10,000 years. While certainly not definite, at all, a 10% chance of eruption within 80 years is far too likely for us to place reactors near it.

http://naturalsociety.com/yellowston...80-years-6715/

hmmmm.I have to say I'm not filled with scientific confidence by the link you've provided. Maybe it's the outlying position on eruption, maybe it's the lack of any actual links to the proof cited or maybe it's that the writer is an amateur blogger rather than a geologist.

The US Geological Survey seem to thing it's "unlikely" within the next 10,000 years. Your source is an amateur blogger. That woudl seem to indicate significantly less percentages than you are stating?

"Will the Yellowstone volcano erupt soon?
Current geologic activity at Yellowstone has remained relatively constant since scientists first started monitoring more than 30 years ago. Another caldera-forming eruption is theoretically possible, but it is very unlikely in the next thousand or even 10,000 years. Scientists have also found no indication of an imminent smaller eruption of lava."

Of course it could all go kablooey next week, so probably best not loading it up with ready made fallout.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hydrogen always brings this to mind.

It's a shame that killed the Airship. with safer lifting gas and advances in technology it would have made for a nicer world. Sadly we get jetliners.