trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

anatta said:
I do not need to be lectured about it by Al Gore, De Caprio or the other hypocritical yahoos.
In fact their preaching on the issue tends to drive me away from their POV.
Click to expand...

You should let science inform your views on science - not your hatred for Democrats.

If you are a around in a couple decades when people of the world are literally crucifying climate deniers, I really don't think "Fat Al Gore made me deny climate science!" is going to be a plausible defense strategy.
 
Cypress said:
You should let science inform your views on science - not your hatred for Democrats.

If you are a around in a couple decades when people of the world are literally crucifying climate deniers, I really don't think "Fat Al Gore made me deny climate science!" is going to be a plausible defense strategy.
Click to expand...
And you wonder why I get on your case when you spout such hysterical emotion laden bullshit. Nothing bad climate wise is going to happen despite all your dire prognostications.

Here is something for you to think about, I have shares in a British company called AFC which is developing industrial scale fuel cells that produce electricity from hydrogen. Now a perfectly feasible way to provide storage for renewables is to use the intermittent electricity to electrolyse water and produce hydrogen which in turn could be fed to fuel cells like those manufactured by AFC. Cambridge and Glasgow Universities have already discovered a far cheaper way to produce the hydrogen as well using inexpensive catalysts. I frankly think that hydrogen powered cars make far more sense than electric cars anyway.

I truly think that 4th generation nuclear will come on-stream in the next couple of decades, so all in all the future is bright. I hope to live long enough to see that all you doom and gloom merchants are totally wrong about the future. If you really want to bloody worry then work out a way to slow down the rate of increase in population, that is the true elephant in the room not climate.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...xpensive-catalyst-under-real-world-conditions

http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2014/september/headline_358595_en.html

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
And you wonder why I get on your case when you spout such hysterical emotion laden bullshit. Nothing bad climate wise is going to happen despite all your dire prognostications.

Here is something for you to think about, I have shares in a British company called AFC which is developing industrial scale fuel cells that produce electricity from hydrogen. Now a perfectly feasible way to provide storage for renewables is to use the intermittent electricity to electrolyse water and produce hydrogen which in turn could be fed to fuel cells like those manufactured by AFC. Cambridge And Glasgow Universities have already discovered a far cheaper way to produce the hydrogen as well using inexpensive catalysts. I frankly think that hydrogen powered cars make far more sense than electric cars anyway.

I truly think that 4th generation nuclear will come on-stream in the next couple of decades, so all in all the future is bright. I hope to live long enough to see that all you doom and gloom merchants ate totally wrong about the future. If you really want to bloody worry then work out a way to slow down the rate of increase in population, that is the true prive-catalyst-under-real-world-conditions

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...xpensive-catalyst-under-real-world-conditions

http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2014/september/headline_358595_en.html

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
Click to expand...

he's an insufferable jerk constantly following me around telling me what I should be concerned with.
The other day it was Islamic sensibilities in the western world.

I do not give a crap,nor would any Muslim care what an old Buddhist as myself has to say about their religion.

I find Islam much too concerned with pro forma doctrines, while missing the concept of compassion outside the umma.

Further I believe wearing a full burka while claiming religious freedom in the west is tantamount
to asking for a terrorist to do his work unseen (unidentified).

I already said I think AGW warming is problematic -
although like yourself i think green will solve the problem before it become apocalyptic like al Gore's film

He's becoming as bad as Rune,although nowhere near as stupid
 
anatta said:
he's an insufferable jerk constantly following me around telling me what I should be concerned with.
The other day it was Islamic sensibilities in the western world.

I do not give a crap,nor would any Muslim care what an old Buddhist as myself has to say about their religion.

I find Islam much too concerned with pro forma doctrines, while missing the concept of compassion outside the umma.

Further I believe wearing a full burka while claiming religious freedom in the west is tantamount
to asking for a terrorist to do his work unseen (unidentified).

I already said I think AGW warming is problematic -
although like yourself i think green will solve the problem before it become apocalyptic like al Gore's film

He's becoming as bad as Rune,although nowhere near as stupid
Click to expand...
Yes Rune is in a class of his own.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
 
Milagro said:
So the fact that there were literally thousands of private jets flying in and out of Orly airport for that COP21 charade doesn't bother you in the slightest?

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
Click to expand...

Why would it?

I'd have to be completely ignorant of the science to let that bother me.

This thread has been pretty revelatory.
 
Thing1 said:
Why would it?

I'd have to be completely ignorant of the science to let that bother me.

This thread has been pretty revelatory.
Click to expand...
Well it has certainly told me a lot about your tolerance to rank hypocrisy at least. Here is a picture of even more of the same. That will take over six weeks and nearly a million pounds to clear that little lot. Oh and you are pretty ignorant of the science for the most part.

e0ff4c4254d0ec19e81968aab32404e1.jpg


Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
 
How is flying in a jet hypocritical?

Again - that's ignorant of the science. It's as significant to the overall carbon output as taking another minute in the shower. In other words - it's not significant at all. Systemic change is what is needed, if you believe that carbon output has to be dramatically curtailed.

What this thread has shown is the complete ignorance that is inherent in seeing Al Gore fly a jet, and then to choose to ignore any other facts about the issue because that gets you so riled up. People always say libbies at the emotional ones, but it's exactly the opposite.

I look at issues - not the people who talk about them. I make up my mind based on the science or whatever other facts exist; not whether someone who is talking about an issue bugs me.
 
Thing1 said:
How is flying in a jet hypocritical?

Again - that's ignorant of the science. It's as significant to the overall carbon output as taking another minute in the shower. In other words - it's not significant at all. Systemic change is what is needed, if you believe that carbon output has to be dramatically curtailed.

What this thread has shown is the complete ignorance that is inherent in seeing Al Gore fly a jet, and then to choose to ignore any other facts about the issue because that gets you so riled up. People always say libbies at the emotional ones, but it's exactly the opposite.

I look at issues - not the people who talk about them. I make up my mind based on the science or whatever other facts exist; not whether someone who is talking about an issue bugs me.
Click to expand...
Flying in a private jet as opposed to a scheduled flight is totally hypocritical for the vast majority of those delegates. It was plainly obvious that many were there for a freebie at someone else's expense.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
 
Milagro said:
Flying in a private jet as opposed to a scheduled flight is totally hypocritical for the vast majority of those delegates. It was plainly obvious that many were there for a freebie at someone else's expense.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
Click to expand...

You ignored everything I wrote.

Who cares? Is that what sways you on this issue?
 
I mean, it's embarrassing. I had no idea that this is how you guys were making up your minds on environmental & energy policy.

It's just like electing Trump. "Hey, let's stick it to the media!" You guys do not think.
 
Thing1 said:
How is flying in a jet hypocritical?

Again - that's ignorant of the science. It's as significant to the overall carbon output as taking another minute in the shower. In other words - it's not significant at all. Systemic change is what is needed, if you believe that carbon output has to be dramatically curtailed.
Click to expand...

Umm, no. Not by a longshot.

This book is a bit dated, but remains useful for ballpark estimates of GHG emissions associated with various activities:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-Everything-ebook/dp/B004VO4IZY/ref=sr_1_1

As an example of a long-haul flight, he considers a round-trip flight from LA to Barcelona. The emissions figures he comes up with are 3.4 tons CO2e (CO2-equivalent) for an economy-class ticket, and 13.5 tons for first class.

Whereas the figures he gives for showering are 90 g for 3 minutes using an efficient gas furnace, and 550 g for 6 minutes using typical electric heating, and 1.9 kg for 15 minutes in an 11 kW high-volume shower.

Obviously completely different orders of magnitude here. Taking a single international flight can constitute most of a person's CO2 emissions in a given year.

What this thread has shown is the complete ignorance that is inherent in seeing Al Gore fly a jet, and then to choose to ignore any other facts about the issue because that gets you so riled up. People always say libbies at the emotional ones, but it's exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...

Well, I think all of us, liberals and conservatives, climate hawks and climate change deniers, get emotional about these issues.

And that's entirely to be expected. We are after all contemplating future changes to our society that were unthinkable just a short while ago.
 
kflaux said:
Umm, no. Not by a longshot.

This book is a bit dated, but remains useful for ballpark estimates of GHG emissions associated with various activities:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-Everything-ebook/dp/B004VO4IZY/ref=sr_1_1

As an example of a long-haul flight, he considers a round-trip flight from LA to Barcelona. The emissions figures he comes up with are 3.4 tons CO2e (CO2-equivalent) for an economy-class ticket, and 13.5 tons for first class.

Whereas the figures he gives for showering are 90 g for 3 minutes using an efficient gas furnace, and 550 g for 6 minutes using typical electric heating, and 1.9 kg for 15 minutes in an 11 kW high-volume shower.

Obviously completely different orders of magnitude here. Taking a single international flight can constitute most of a person's CO2 emissions in a given year.



Well, I think all of us, liberals and conservatives, climate hawks and climate change deniers, get emotional about these issues.

And that's entirely to be expected. We are after all contemplating future changes to our society that were unthinkable just a short while ago.
Click to expand...

That's like saying there is a discernible difference between drinking a glass of water & 20 gallons of water when compared to worldwide water consumption as a whole.

Is there a difference? Sure. Is there a difference when it comes to worldwide consumption? Well, sort of.
 
kflaux said:
Umm. Anatta is not wrong to point out that there is a conflict between what climate researchers are telling us about climate change, and their tendency to fly around the world to conferences etc.

And some of them (but not many, yet) have sworn off flying. Others try to use Skype etc to participate via internet whenever possible.

Nor is it limited to the researchers. In Bill McKibben's last book, he admitted that he was starting to feel guilty about doing so much traveling, given the GHG emissions involved. He justified it in terms of his climate activism, and he is not wrong about that, either--there is obviously a difference between flying several thousand miles just to lie on a beach, and flying that distance to attend a conference, give a speech, coordinate activist activities (all three of which I think McKibben is doing on a typical trip).

But, we need to begin walking the walk...literally, when shorter distances are involved.....

If getting somewhere quickly is not necessary, it is often possible to travel more slowly and in a much more environmentally responsible fashion. I think that the options for doing so will gradually expand over time.
Click to expand...

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/

Seat-spinning research

One of the few researchers trying to make a straight, consistent comparison across the U.S transportation sector is Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. In working papers released over the past two years, Sivak has attempted to overturn the conventional wisdom: His main recent finding is that the average energy intensity of driving is about twice that of flying, a conclusion based on the current average on-road fuel economy of cars, pick-up trucks, SUVs, and vans (21.6 mpg).

How can that be?

First, Sivak asserts that the way some government energy intensity figures have been produced involves some inconsistencies, namely that different carrier groups for fuel consumed and passenger miles flown are used, and that estimates include cargo operations. Correcting for these, he arrives at 2,033 BTU per passenger mile for airline travel in 2012. (He uses the comparative figure 4,211 BTU per passenger mile for cars, a number derived from the federal Research and Innovative Technology Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation.)

This new transportation reality also comes down to the fact, Sivak says, that cars increasingly have only the driver in them — no or few passengers. The result is that associated energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions are very high, making air travel look like a comparatively sound alternative.

The University of Oslo team has published similar findings: “With only passenger in the car, corresponding to 20-25% [potential] occupancy, the climate impact is at the level of an average air trip.”



That means double up and take your main squeeze when you're taking a long trip, all good. But five days coast to coast including food and lodging are going to add up and you better like whoever a whole bunch.


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top