• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So, you're saying there's a chance.

SkinsNDeacs said:
I guess I should have been more clear. The opponents of abortion and the opponents of climate change science act similar. They never really look for solutions they look to win a debate. Fringe pro lifers don't really want less abortion...if they did they would be behind sex education and contraception. Only the fringe of the climate deniers would say that alternative energy sources is a bad thing. However, because "conservatives" (strange title for this issue) think they are on the team of anti-climate change they think they should be anti-alternative energy sources.
Click to expand...

I just used the term "conservatives" because people within this ideology seem to be the ones most resistant to the concept of climate change and are more likely than most other ideologies to be pro-life. Fringe pro lifers do in fact really want less abortion, but they want to have their cake and eat it too in that they don't want to talk about sex at all. They want to not talk about sex and have fewer abortions which of course is ridiculous as us sane people can all agree.

I do agree with almost everything in your post though, I just thought originally you were saying pro-choice and people who do embrace the fact that humans drive climate change were more interested in teaming up and debating semantics than making change. This is the point I was skeptical about as far as the "teams" comment went.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Has it ever occurred to you that you have said that about dozens of posters. Is the problem with all of us or you?
Click to expand...

Are there a bunch of obsessed with RJ posters like you, Racer and about a dozen or two others? Yep.

There are many more people who laugh at you guys than there of you.

The sad part is I treated you with a respect you have never afforded me. Then you you blame it on me.
 
RJ is a name on the board. if you noticed the rest of the post I say "I" and "me", but I wouldn't expect you to understand this.
 
Back to the issue, getting 95% of 800 scientists, who come from dozens of countries, to agree man is a major cause is definitive. You can't say "forty years X% of scientists said something that wasn't so". Forty we didn't have anywhere near the computer modeling we have today.
 
I can't imagine what it will be like for people, in a decade or so, trying to explain how they refused to acknowledge the reality of man-made climate change because they were so easily snowed by an avalanche of special interest money. At least there will be a scapegoat.
 
I don't disagree that man is a contributing factor but I do wonder how much would have to change to truly make an impact.

Do all cars now have to be electric? How do we generate the electricity to charge the cars? Am I going to have to use an electric lawn mower?
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I don't disagree that man is a contributing factor but I do wonder how much would have to change to truly make an impact.

Do all cars now have to be electric? How do we generate the electricity to charge the cars? Am I going to have to use an electric lawn mower?
Click to expand...


About the time you were born (or a few years before), the US government decided that leaded gas would be banned and all new cars produced starting in X model year would use either diesel or unleaded gas. There's no reason we can't demand that by 2020 that every new car sold in the US has to be a hybrid.

There's also no reason we can't make CAFE standards apply to all cars/trucks/SUVs sold in the US. We could easily lower our usage of oil dramatically by doing this.

The oil and coal industries have spent billions to keep this from happening. They are also opposed to building a new, much more highly efficient electrical grid, because it lower their profits.

If we do these things, we can cut our use of oil by a huge percentage. It should create a glut of oil, but the oil companies won't let that happen.
 
We need to vastly expand nuclear power but unfortunately both the pro-fossil fuel camp and environmentalist camp fight nuclear.
 
From my balcony we can see the nuclear plant in the distance and I have to say that it is somewhat disconcerting being that close.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
From my balcony we can see the nuclear plant in the distance and I have to say that it is somewhat disconcerting being that close.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be. The coal fired power plants that you probably can't see from your balcony pose a MUCH grater danger to you and are not sustainable.
 
The parts to build nuclear reactors are scarce and it slows down production of new plants.

Gas is cheap and relatively clean. I'm not against gas. We jut need to conserve it and use it wisely, with global warming and dumbass religious zealots in the ME in mind. When you factor in military operations in the ME and health care costs of kids with asthma and other breathing problems the price of gas is much higher than what you pay at the pump.
 
Last edited:
Arnold Vinick thought nuclear power was safe and it cost him an election.

I have no problem with nuclear power. It is just that for a split second I think about the worst possible scenario. I also think about the balcony collapsing and falling 16 stories to my death.
 
WakeandBake said:
The parts to build nuclear reactors are scarce and it slows down production of new plants.

Gas is cheap and relatively clean. I'm not against gas. We jut need to conserve it and use it wisely, with global warming and dumbass religious zealots in the ME in mind. When you factor in military operations in the ME and health care costs of kids with asthma and other breathing problems the price of gas is much higher than what you pay at the pump.
Click to expand...

Scarcity of parts is not what slows the production of nuclear power plants...it is more about an illegitimate fear and an omni powerful fossils fuel industry . I am not a nuclear scientist (shocker...I know) but from my minuscule understanding nuclear technology is advancing to where some of the scarcity hurdles aren't as high as they use to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top