[philosophical_recovery]

Instead of collectively kicking the economy in the balls, reducing the world into a dictatorial, Venezuelan-like carbon-state-police Kafkaesque nightmare, we should focus on bringing back nuclear power.

With high quality, nearly limitless energy, we can do untold things. Too much carbon? Use that energy to sequester it, if it is a real issue. Not enough fresh water? Desalinize with our huge power.

Otherwise, the human race will just succumb to low power, government driven solutions that kill the human spirit. Balls need to drop, testosterone needs to be injected, and we need to start building real shit again, instead of focusing on 1080HD energy star compliant iPhones so that we can better manage our 5 government allowed instagram profile pictures, to limit our environmental impact.

With nuclear power, we can also make space rocket fuel at will and actually do something cool instead of worry about what some dumb feminist has said today.

Government wants to make geldings of us all, just look at the proposed solutions. We'll be weakened until some outside force decides they don't want to follow our rules and mounts a real attack. Then, we're back at square one anyway, with even less infrastructure because it's been bombed to bits, except now it's politically untenable and too energy intensive to rebuild anything.

[Truth Teller]

(05-28-2015 08:48 AM)Menace Wrote:  

1. The notion that if a majority of scientists believe X, therefore X is true, is one of the most unscientific arguments there is. It is the antithesis of science.

No, but it certainly means that there are good reasons to suppose that X is true.

[Blaster]

(05-28-2015 11:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

It doesn't matter if it's worth "gambling", because China, India, and the other 2/3's of the world's population doesn't give a shit.

Either develop new technologies or stop pretending this is a serious issue.

I agree with the first comment but not the second. That China, India, etc. are not on board with environmental stuff doesn't mean the environmental concerns aren't a problem, however much it might expose libtard short-sightedness.

[The_CEO]

As compelling as the fossil fuel industry sponsored "science" may be, I'm going with NASA on this one.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-28-2015 12:21 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

[/quote]

The sun is the major culprit of ice ages and the few beneficial time periods in Earth history.

Of course we are blasting CO2, but it's too little still:

We should all fart out more and jet around the world as much as possible.

Currently there is a global cooling in place as I have read reports by climatologists who specialize in sunspot activity a few years ago. They predicted rather global cooling at the time Al Gore was barking about the End Times because of being grilled and flooded. By the way - I am freezing my butt off here in Krakow with 7 degrees Celcius while June is a few days off. We are closer to winter than summer here for now.

The cold is a much greater enemy than the heat on our water-rich planet.

But you see - they cannot have it both ways - talk about Global Warming, then change their mind and call it Climate Change, when the models could not even predict a few years of Global Warming. That's not how science should work.

http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

[Switch]

I don't think a reasonable person can come to any conclusion with any degree of certainty regarding this topic. There is so much conflicting evidence and ulterior motives behind studies to reach a well thought out and reasonable conclusion. I think the only proper conclusion is that we really have no clue what is happening but we should invest in clean energy just in case.

[Samseau]

(05-28-2015 12:21 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

There's also some other interesting connections that he's found: a declining solar output cycle almost always correlates to the fall of the dominant civilization or society during that period.

[/quote]

That's because old civilizations were heavily dependent on agriculture. Bad yield = famine for the year.

[kosko]

(05-28-2015 01:01 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

It doesn't matter if it's worth "gambling", because China, India, and the other 2/3's of the world's population doesn't give a shit.

Either develop new technologies or stop pretending this is a serious issue.

I agree with the first comment but not the second. That China, India, etc. are not on board with environmental stuff doesn't mean the environmental concerns aren't a problem, however much it might expose libtard short-sightedness.

China and India are investing the most in green technology out of sheer need. They are fucked with no stable source for energy and anything they can not get via tradtional fossil fuels they will gladly take. China is building the most state of the art reactors, while India is very close with both low scale and large scale renewable systems that actually work and make sense from a ROI/KwH standpoint.

Its only America with its head in the sand. Its hard to a rural Indian man he has to scale back when he likely just gets his power from a simple generator each day for 6-8 hours, versus a dude from Texas who has lived with power and two cars for 90% of his life. The climate change narrative (aka what it hints at for soluations) are all BS and just are attempts to limit and rigidly control new world development. Every country is entitled to thier own productive and industrial age, it isn't something the West will only get the privy to achieve.

Nobody is attempting to live like the USA where each American has a output of waste 4.3 times greater then others, places like NYC are more wasteful the whole nations that have 5 times the people, if America stopped moaning and started producing actual viable renewable low impact technology then this idea of "global warming" wouldn't be happening. Per capita America is the biggest polluter by a mile, it isn't even close. Its faulty scaling to try and attempt to put nations of a billion people plus on par with a nation of 300 million (places like Canada and Australia are just as bad, just a bit less then America).

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-29-2015 02:57 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

That's because old civilizations were heavily dependent on agriculture. Bad yield = famine for the year.

That's correct. We would not be even threatened by a global ice age. We would either move to the warm areas or build domed cities and huge aquaponic greenhouses. High civilization is a big plus.

[Libertas]

(05-28-2015 12:33 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

Instead of collectively kicking the economy in the balls, reducing the world into a dictatorial, Venezuelan-like carbon-state-police Kafkaesque nightmare, we should focus on bringing back nuclear power.

The amount of fear behind nuclear power is really astonishing. People fear Chernobyl or Fukushima like events but they don't realize just how far reactors have come.

Kosko hit on a key point too. A lot of countries are now cutting back on fossil fuels because they can't even afford them anymore. Greece for instance is cutting down tons of trees because the people now need wood to heat their homes:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142412...0995369300

[Blaster]

(05-29-2015 03:29 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Every country is entitled to thier own productive and industrial age, it isn't something the West will only get the privy to achieve.

This is easy to say, but what if it is not possible? What if there are not sufficient resources in the world to support it?

Quote:

Nobody is attempting to live like the USA where each American has a output of waste 4.3 times greater then others, places like NYC are more wasteful the whole nations that have 5 times the people, if America stopped moaning and started producing actual viable renewable low impact technology then this idea of "global warming" wouldn't be happening.

So do you think having police go door to door in ripping out Air Conditioning units is reasonable? Outlawing cars tomorrow?

Quote:

Per capita America is the biggest polluter by a mile, it isn't even close. Its faulty scaling to try and attempt to put nations of a billion people plus on par with a nation of 300 million (places like Canada and Australia are just as bad, just a bit less then America).

The faultiness goes both ways. If you're comparing a nation of 1 billion to a nation of 300 million using a per capita measure without any kind of deeper statistical analysis, then obviously the country with the gigantic population of rural poor will look more efficient. But this is an illusion because nobody in the US wants to live in rural china or like rural chinese, and nobody is comparing the per-capita consumption of similar classes in the US and China.

And if you're comparing developed countries, there's an obvious correlation between a country's size and its per capita energy consumption (simple reason: travel and shipping are more costly). Looking at the top countries in per-capita energy use, you see very small countries with unique demands like Iceland. You also see wealthy+tiny countries like Kuwait and Luxembourg. Or, you see larger, less dense countries like Canada, Australia, Norway, Finland, and Russia. The US is in that category. Meanwhile denser countries like Germany, UK, and France are in the middle of the pack. The countries at the bottom are those who have lots of poor people and small economies.

[Cattle Rustler]

You guys advocating fossil fuels or nuclear are liberal as Obama, even more so.

A real conservative, like me, would advocate for steam and wind. The same power that brought the founding fathers to 'murica!

[Sonsowey]

(05-29-2015 10:25 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

You guys advocating fossil fuels or nuclear are liberal as Obama, even more so.

A real conservative, like me, would advocate for steam and wind. The same power that brought the founding fathers to 'murica!

True throwback environmentalist conservatives know there's only one way to get around:



Zero emissions, zero hippy bullshit.

[philosophical_recovery]

To reiterate my point, I can see the following happening in the near future if real power isn't being produced soon:

"We're sorry, but although we believe in free speech, we noticed that your website, rooshvforum.network, has consumed an estimated xxx kilowatt hours of electricity for both server hosting and associated internet traffic. This environmental impact is estimated to be yyy tons of CO2 generation. As this is more than we allocate for sites that do not meet our sustainability guidelines, it will be shut down in 10 business days.

To resume your website service, please make adjustments per the Website Sustainability and Equality Guidelines and contact your local sustainability administrator via [email protected].

We apologize for the inconvenience, and wish you a happy Fourth of July!"

[El Chinito loco]

(05-29-2015 10:25 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

You guys advocating fossil fuels or nuclear are liberal as Obama, even more so.

A real conservative, like me, would advocate for steam and wind. The same power that brought the founding fathers to 'murica!

A continent spanning budget friendly ironclad vessel capable of floating and setting adrift several million metric tons of female anglo american flesh along with their own hilarious self selected "noah's ark" animals wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Build it and they will come. Then push them off around Florida. If America is lucky most will be lost in the Bermuda triangle.

[The_CEO]

[Darius]

(05-29-2015 10:55 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Let's just say we take this as true and sea levels will rise.

Scenario One:Get rid of fossil fuels. This causes economic stagnation and regression. The death of billions worldwide.

Scenario Two:We do nothing. Sea level rises some coast lines are lost, people move inland. Huge economic costs but deaths are in the millions in worst case scenarios.

[The_CEO]

(05-29-2015 11:28 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 10:55 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Let's just say we take this as true and sea levels will rise.

Scenario One:Get rid of fossil fuels. This causes economic stagnation and regression. The death of billions worldwide.

Scenario Two:We do nothing. Sea level rises some coast lines are lost, people move inland. Huge economic costs but deaths are in the millions in worst case scenarios.

Humans have the capability to come up with, Scenario Three:

Develop affordable clean energy source (cold fusion?) that is far better than fossil fuels.
It's happening anyway. UPS and Walmart are investing in clean powered vehicles b/c of fuel costs (for example). Countries are also investing in solar as costs come down (China, Dubai).
Elon Musk has just developed a battery energy storage system for in-home use.

[Cattle Rustler]

Billions? There's only 7 Billion of us in this planet, I doubt half the world is going to die because we went without fossil fuels.

Fuck yeah with the mega row bows. That way we can be energy independent and reduce the fatties in 'murica one row stroke at a time!

[Darius]

(05-29-2015 01:26 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Billions? There's only 7 Billion of us in this planet, I doubt half the world is going to die because we went without fossil fuels.

Half the world would die without fossil fuels.

Our world is dependent on them for just about everything.

[Libertas]

(05-29-2015 01:26 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Billions? There's only 7 Billion of us in this planet, I doubt half the world is going to die because we went without fossil fuels.

What Darius said above.

Our agricultural system uses fossil fuel byproducts not just to transport our food, but to produce it. If those fossil fuels went away there would be a mass famine.

[philosophical_recovery]

^Bingo

Taking away fossil fuels would launch a famine ala Holodomor. There wouldn't even be enough energy to mine, refine, and manufacture solar at that point, not to mention clean up the chemical messes left from all of the byproducts.

People would be desperately scratching at the earth and killing each other to survive.

More power will enable more solutions. Less power=death.

[Libertas]

We definitely need a new nuclear power but I'm not sure how feasible that would be to replacing fossil fuels at least in the near term future (probably at least for the next 30 years), and in those 30 years we're likely looking at depletion problems if we continue the drive for economic growth.

We talked about water issues in another thread, but we need to re-localize our food production as well. The way we currently produce our food makes absolutely no sense.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-29-2015 06:01 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 01:26 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Billions? There's only 7 Billion of us in this planet, I doubt half the world is going to die because we went without fossil fuels.

What Darius said above.

Our agricultural system uses fossil fuel byproducts not just to transport our food, but to produce it. If those fossil fuels went away there would be a mass famine.

Not if there is a few years time to replace it with something else. Currently there are multiple technologies which are being suppressed - all of them could have replaced fossil fuels. I won't even bother linking to the TV reports and studies going back as far as the 1940s.

Sure - if it comes fast or the technologies are still suppressed and fuel is at 200$/gallon, then that will cause massive disruptions.

Fortunately even the "end" of fossil fuels are a myth too. There are actual scientific reports out there which claim that crude oil is a not an organic product, but a mineral one created by pressure deep underground. It's resources are virtually unlimited as oil fields do replenish themselves and deeper drills could actually produce even higher quantities. While I don't know whether it is true, it sounds plausible to me.

By the way - so far it was currently impossible to recreate crude oil through any kind of biological mass procedure. However it was possible to generate oil via processes where minerals were used.

http://viewzone.com/abioticoil.html

Quote:

Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find

What would happen if it were proven that "fossil fuels" weren't the result of decaying plant and animal matter, were actually created within the Earth due to simple chemistry and you could not be scared into believing that we were "running out" of oil and natural gas?

So to recap - not only are we being in my opinion lied to as far as crude oil is concerned, but the technologies out there should long since make energy almost free and batteries should be so durable that you can drive a car for 10.000 miles on one charge.

This is not science fiction:

Here one of the energy technologies - BBC clip - look at patents at the end of report - going back to government organisations to the 1940s.

(clip is called wrongly - the TV report came out in the 1970s - this among other technologies is available much earlier as is apparent by the list of patents)
Also - this is only one of many such processes which could generate energy almost free for all.

But alas - no one would make money off it. A huge part of our current economic system would be destroyed - especially incomes of the upper 0,001%. Even more important than the income loss would be the loss of control and power. If people can have local independent generators and barely need the essential means of corporations, then many more people could have independent agriculture and living. What people also miss is that if energy costs close to zero and batteries are super-powerful, then transport would also cost little, agriculture could be extended to so far never seen degrees, water could be generated easily (deep wells which are currently unprofitable or desalination plants), we could literally make the Sahara bloom if we wanted to and have paradise on Earth. But of course - the current elite would not rule, which is why this will never come about. They rather rule over a more primitive world than create a better one and not rule at all.

Our economic system is still one big scam - just a new form of feudalism.