Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 26 of 75 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 1118
  1. #376
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,167
    I watched the PM of the Canadian Province which has the Canadian Shale oil reserves talk how stupid the canceling of the keystone pipeline is along with why the US is going to its enemies Iran, Venezuela and not North American allies to replace the lost Russian oil that is being purchased?

    Why in the hell is Biden doing this dumb ****? the pipeline would just save money in that it is already mostly spent and is less than being trucked to the existing ports. It seems like Biden and the dems want the price of gasoline to skyrocket and to put not just the oil companies but other companies that use oil byproducts out of business also. Whose side are they on? China and Russia?

  2. #377
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    47,308
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I have encountered this as a leader in the Army all the time. This "it's just not the right time" mentality. Truth is, it is never going to be the perfect time to change, but the best time to change is always the present.
    You're right. I think you summed it up much better in your response to Raps than I ever could. There needs to be real movement towards achieving these deadlines and not just giving it lip service. That said, you and I both know the obvious retorts in respect to significant government spending during a time of heavy inflation. Its not looked at is a necessity because much like social security (going bankrupt) and other issues, there's always the next generation of adults who can deal with those things.

  3. #378
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    Not always but in this case its likely this inflation will need to be stopped by recession. I'm not so concerned given you already see the decline in ecenomic certain trading and we'll probably hit that 2 quarter teigger point of economic contraction as costs continue to soar.
    I think that it is likely that we will have a drastic recession based on how stupid the Fed has been and is likely to continue to be because of the idiots in the Fed along with Yellen and the Treasury department. Even with the Dems goign to be bounced out of control of the House and Senate, Biden will continue to spend out of control via Executive orders and continue to drive the US into a bad recession.

  4. #379
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    I dont agree with this take at all. Global warming is hapoening. The best way to avoid it is to develop technological advancements. Technological advancements cant happen right now because everything costs so high right now. Everything costs high because of Covid and uncertainty regarding oil exponentially increasing supply chain cost.
    How are you sure that global warming is happening? Do you know how many measuring stations are missing or not accurate in the world that get "plugged" with estimated and not actual temperatures and that these data points are used to produce the world temperature graphs and grids? I read in a study conducted by environmental scientists that at least 14% of these stations have estimated data being plugged into the model in order to generate study results. In other words, what temperature predictions are is imaginary at best.


    Then on the other side of this "project", when will the ocean's ice caps melt and drown civilization in the process. When will the jungles of the world turn to desert and starve out the remaining people left after the floods
    or they all die of thirst ?

    Then again, what if we have an ice age instead of the sun burning us all out. What by the way is the amount of temperature that the sun provides right now versus the carbon "footprint" of all of the pipsqueak mankind causes? 30 years or so ago, similar scientists warned the people in the world of the coming ICE AGE. Now their sons and daughters are predicting that Greenland will be a CLub Med landing spot replacing the Bahamas and Australia.
    Last edited by Bird of Prey; 05-19-2022 at 12:50 AM.

  5. #380
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    If affordable and equitable.
    The worst arguments put forward by the government is the one that screwed every about the Covid mandates which was "we have to TRUST THE SCIENCE. Big Mistake. Science get manipulate all of the time and is often tailored to whoever runs the government and politicians. Guys like Musk and true scientific geniuses are few and far between that don't end up as pawns for someone with selfish motives.

  6. #381
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    You're right. I think you summed it up much better in your response to Raps than I ever could. There needs to be real movement towards achieving these deadlines and not just giving it lip service. That said, you and I both know the obvious retorts in respect to significant government spending during a time of heavy inflation. Its not looked at is a necessity because much like social security (going bankrupt) and other issues, there's always the next generation of adults who can deal with those things.
    How about if the federal government dictate that each American has to give up half of their paycheck whatever that is to send to the federal government to pay for reducing the temperature of the globe by two degrees. that is the target that I've read will cause the end of the world via global warming? Okay with you? It might force you to leave and sell your house for peanuts but hey, its for a great cause, right? This is the SCIENCE John Kerry and Greta Girl tell us. We believe these people, right? Who is the Fauci equivalent as this Green science expert?

  7. #382
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,814
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It doesn't mean anything because your PM said it's a good idea, it means something because scientists said it's a good idea.

    The fact that you can't wrap your head around what they say mattering is a big problem. Can you find me the scientists that are saying the Keystone pipeline is a good idea or will somehow lead to less CO2 emissions? Because everything I'm seeing they're saying the exact opposite.
    What are you talking about? You literally just asked me where the tax revenues are going and I showed you how tax revenues were used towards transition to renewable energy as what was said by PM Trudeau and what he implemented. I have never said that Trudeau has never said pumping more oil is directly good for the environment. He said that pumping more oil grows the economy while using revenue to transition to cleaner energy (as per the policies he has since implemented).

    Increasing production now in the hopes we just discover the technology to solve it later is a bad strategy. Tax breaks to companies developing and implementing renewable energy projects is a good start, start being the operative word. But it's not the sum total of effort we need to expend, but it seems the sum total of energy you are wiling to. .
    Some of the technology already exist or is in production already. Itís not a ďhope we discover technologyĒ. A lot of it is in the SRED phase already.
    Just because it requires oil doesn't mean you can't offset it elsewhere, or that you must increase oil consumption to achieve these goals.
    Theoretically you donít have to but if you do not increase supply with increased demand then you will accomplish increased cost. Which means you have to give more tax breaks (so that they have more money to spend to offset the additional cost), which means less government revenue for other services. Again, which department should I take from to make this work?


    And this seems to be your ideology and problem in a nutshell. You're like "sure we should do something about it, only if it doesn't affect me or the economy or anyone in any wayĒ


    This is not a problem that will be solved with it affecting no one. We can agree or disagree to the effect we think it needs to affect us, but your solution of "not at all" is untenable...
    You mean balancing the needs that others care about as well? Itís a bit disingenuous to say that itís ďmy problemĒ as if not being concerned about not affecting other people is something so problematic. That is how democratic system works.


    Well the article goes into more detail on specific things that need to be done (obviously you didn't read it), but beyond that, the first step is to commit to achieving these goals. Do you really think if your actual desire was to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 that you couldn't find an economically viable way to get it done? ...
    But thatís so generic and thatís why Iím struggling having this discussion. Again, what are those economic impacts to make it work and what are the arguments to the byproducts of those decisions Like something as simple as what Iíve already asked hasnít been answered. If you implement tax breaks for companies doing renewable energy, how do you offset the reduction in revenue and how do you handle the chain reaction. I didnít go through all 64 pages but the article doesnít go into that level of detail unless you can help direct me there.


    That you think scientists are biased is a big problem. What is their bias? Stopping global warming? That is the point.
    To be clear: I'm not guilting anyone. I'm saying we should be listening to the scientists. You are attempting to act like that is an unreasonable approach.
    But you just suggested You're like "sure we should do something about it, only if it doesn't affect me or the economy or anyone in any wayĒ earlier in your post. That doesnít mean Iím not listening to scientist. That means I am listening to a hundred other people who think their problem takes priority over other people.
    Part of making decisions means compromising. My suggestions may not prioritize certain parties over another but thatís a hell of a lot different than saying I am not listening to other people or I am doing it in a way that is dismissive of issues. That feels like an ďAmericanĒ way of doing politics.

    I also want to point out the net carbon neutrality by 2050 plan calls for immediate reduction in emissions, with benchmarks to hit in 2025, 2030, and 2040. The goal is to hit 100% carbon neutrality by then, not conduct business as usual and shut off carbon when 2050 rolls around. To get to net carbon neutrality, it's going to take a long time of reduction to get there. You want the 2050 endgoal without any of the parts of the plan from then to now.
    Some of those goals were put in place before COVID19 and the war on Ukraine. That usually means pivoting shorter term goals but maintaining longer term ones, which I have tried to keep towards (and still falls in line with Elon Muskís timelines, who will probably build those factories anyway).


    We can keep going in circles about this but let's start with the fundamentals. Using the policies in place in that artcle, tell me the economic impact of those decisions and the byproduct of those decisions, especially in this current marco environment (significant inflation plus a proxy war happening).

  8. #383
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,814
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    You're talking to someone who thinks global warming and climate change is not real. Just a heads up.

    To be fair, it sounds a lot like kicking the can down the road which is something we've been doing for decades in respect to alternative energy and addressing climate change. I understand this isn't the most ideal time given the landscape of the US and world economics but its not like the US federal government puts the brakes on significant spending altogether and the preceding legislation that enacts it.

    It's not a process that is going to be easy but ignoring it isn't the answer either.
    I've never said anything about ignoring it. Talking about building battery factories and making technological advancement isn't kicking it down the road, its speeding up the process to provide alternative. I think the world will transition out of oil faster if the alternatives are readily available and scalable so that costs are lower. But money doesn't grow on trees so the money has to come from somewhere but I haven't actually seen a suggestion on how to do this outside and the economic impact of that.

    Would I just pump out oil if we didn't reinvest it in renewable energy? Of course not, but you can't even have that discussion if we shut it down right from the beginning. And it leaves my Canadian government with less tax revenue towards renewable energy initiatives (makes it harder to change the model as well).

  9. #384
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird of Prey View Post
    How are you sure that global warming is happening? Do you know how many measuring stations are missing or not accurate in the world that get "plugged" with estimated and not actual temperatures and that these data points are used to produce the world temperature graphs and grids? I read in a study conducted by environmental scientists that at least 14% of these stations have estimated data being plugged into the model in order to generate study results. In other words, what temperature predictions are is imaginary at best.


    Then on the other side of this "project", when will the ocean's ice caps melt and drown civilization in the process. When will the jungles of the world turn to desert and starve out the remaining people left after the floods
    or they all die of thirst ?

    Then again, what if we have an ice age instead of the sun burning us all out. What by the way is the amount of temperature that the sun provides right now versus the carbon "footprint" of all of the pipsqueak mankind causes? 30 years or so ago, similar scientists warned the people in the world of the coming ICE AGE. Now their sons and daughters are predicting that Greenland will be a CLub Med landing spot replacing the Bahamas and Australia.
    I wouldn't doubt you saw a study like that by those environmental scientists but the scientific method is susceptible to different conclusions (just like anything else). Can I assume you picked to believe that study because it aligned with previous thoughts you had about the issue already?

    What do you think the definition of global warming is?

  10. #385
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird of Prey View Post
    I think that it is likely that we will have a drastic recession based on how stupid the Fed has been and is likely to continue to be because of the idiots in the Fed along with Yellen and the Treasury department. Even with the Dems goign to be bounced out of control of the House and Senate, Biden will continue to spend out of control via Executive orders and continue to drive the US into a bad recession.
    This was bound to happen regardless because of the spending due to COVID19. I don't want to make this into a COVID thread so I (would probably sum it up to say that the economy wasn't ever going to do well with the response of the COVID situation, which in hind sight I think a lot of people would struggle with where to lean or lean towards perceived economy growth over the perceived health benefits.

  11. #386
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird of Prey View Post
    I watched the PM of the Canadian Province which has the Canadian Shale oil reserves talk how stupid the canceling of the keystone pipeline is along with why the US is going to its enemies Iran, Venezuela and not North American allies to replace the lost Russian oil that is being purchased?

    Why in the hell is Biden doing this dumb ****? the pipeline would just save money in that it is already mostly spent and is less than being trucked to the existing ports. It seems like Biden and the dems want the price of gasoline to skyrocket and to put not just the oil companies but other companies that use oil byproducts out of business also. Whose side are they on? China and Russia?
    Those oils are being generated by countries that have a history of exploiting their workers as well and will need to be transported by rail/truck/ships. It's a tough balancing act considering the current operations of the world require use of gas/oil for the next few decades until alternatives come to fruition (which people like Elon Musk admit will be 20 years from now).

  12. #387
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    47,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    I've never said anything about ignoring it. Talking about building battery factories and making technological advancement isn't kicking it down the road, its speeding up the process to provide alternative. I think the world will transition out of oil faster if the alternatives are readily available and scalable so that costs are lower. But money doesn't grow on trees so the money has to come from somewhere but I haven't actually seen a suggestion on how to do this outside and the economic impact of that.

    Would I just pump out oil if we didn't reinvest it in renewable energy? Of course not, but you can't even have that discussion if we shut it down right from the beginning. And it leaves my Canadian government with less tax revenue towards renewable energy initiatives (makes it harder to change the model as well).
    I didn't suggest you said to ignore it. I said we keep kicking the can down the road because its something American politics are great at. We aren't proactive. We're reactive and we usually let things get to the point of being near or past a critical point before we address whatever issue it is. Then there are things we ignore entirely making it so other generations have to deal with it. Think its time we stop doing that. You would think it would be something we would want to to do for self preservation reasons as a species, even if we don't give a **** about the planet in the abstract.

    And yes I'm aware it has to be a global effort as well.
    Last edited by metswon69; 05-19-2022 at 12:01 PM.

  13. #388
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird of Prey View Post
    What scientists can prove how much the temperature of the world would be reduced significantly by replacing all of the fossil fuels with green energy? Answer,there is no proof.
    Of course there is no proof ó because reducing the temperature is not the goal (it is not feasible).

    The goal of replacing fossil fuels with green energy is to keep the temperature of the earth from increasing.

    Big difference.

  14. #389
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,814
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I didn't suggest you said to ignore it. I said we keep kicking the can down the road because its something American politics are great at. We aren't proactive. We're reactive and we usually let things get to the point of being near or past a critical point before we address whatever issue it is. Then there are things we ignore entirely making it so other generations have to deal with it. Think its time we stop doing that. You would think it would be something we would want to to do for self preservation reasons as a species, even if we don't give a **** about the planet in the abstract.

    And yes I'm aware it has to be a global effort as well.
    Oh ok i misunderstood. Yea I am in agreement to be proactive. I have made suggestions on what I think that means (investing in technology for alternatives, including aligning my views with guy who made more contributions than other people) while making sure things continue to happen today.

  15. #390
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    I've never said anything about ignoring it. Talking about building battery factories and making technological advancement isn't kicking it down the road, its speeding up the process to provide alternative. I think the world will transition out of oil faster if the alternatives are readily available and scalable so that costs are lower. But money doesn't grow on trees so the money has to come from somewhere but I haven't actually seen a suggestion on how to do this outside and the economic impact of that.

    Would I just pump out oil if we didn't reinvest it in renewable energy? Of course not, but you can't even have that discussion if we shut it down right from the beginning. And it leaves my Canadian government with less tax revenue towards renewable energy initiatives (makes it harder to change the model as well).
    That is a very solid response. This is kind of where I am really. The way to migrate off of fossil fuels is with a pragmatic approach based on reality all around. Not some half truths and programs based on lies and misinformation similar to the reaction to the China virus that was generated by people that were untrustworthy and had their own selfish agendas.

Page 26 of 75 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •