Does CO2 cause global warming? Is it good to reduce CO2? Who the Frack cares!

abandonconflict said:

North Korea, we did go to war with Iraq over WMD according to some people, if not WMD than energy (oil), which is related. Libya and Syria haven't yet had the chance, but with our puppets in power, they might not have too many problems. The US is certainly pushing a nonproliferation agenda.

Click to expand...

iraq was chemical and biological weapons

i havent seen syria or libya try to go for nuclear power yet

Then there is New Zealand. No nuclear technology whatsoever, and yet so green...odd.

Click to expand...

are you suggesting that the usa is stopping them having nukes or are you being deliberatley vague and saying new zealand doent need them?



looks to me that they've some work to do...

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, this whole thing has been because you perceived that I challenged your supremacy and ultimate correctness and therefore devoted two pages to vanquishing my uncouth disrespect of the idea that Nuclear power is the only good solution to a problem we agree exists.

Click to expand...

is petulance part of basic for the armed forces over there?

Cool though, totally over shadow any responsibility that society has for buying so much energy from people who have no scruples about destroying the environment.

Click to expand...

im pretty sure my argument throughout has been that society should cut down on their energy usage but theres only so far it can go before it stops being the society it is now

but nice strawman tho keep it up

ginjawarrior said:

im pretty sure my argument throughout has been that society should cut down on their energy usage

Click to expand...

I agree. Actually that has been my point too. Is that why I'm petulant?

abandonconflict said:

I agree. Actually that has been my point too. Is that why I'm petulant?

Click to expand...

no its all your bitchy comments about my apparent "supremacy" you've played the butthurt card several times thru this conversation

nice how you cut out the part of the quote you dont like

im pretty sure my argument throughout has been that society should cut down on their energy usage but theres only so far it can go before it stops being the society it is now

i want this world to move onwards and upwards and to do that we need a constant supply of clean energy

ginjawarrior said:

i want this world to move onwards and upwards and to do that we need a constant supply of clean energy

Click to expand...

and each and every one of us needs to personally move onwards and upwards.

abandonconflict said:

and each and every one of us needs to personally move onwards and upwards.

Click to expand...

its going to take more than individual effort alone for this one

abandonconflict said:

The grid infrastructure is already there. You don't need to build any new grid infrastructure.

Click to expand...

methinks someone hasnt researched his ideas thoroughly

abandonconflict said:

Click to expand...

"Operators of wind farms were paid £34 million to switch off turbines during gales - millions more than previously thought - it was reported. ........
....The wind farms are paid to stop by the National Grid, which cannot cope with the extra energy produced by the high winds. "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9578104/Wind-farm-operators-paid-millions-more-than-previously-thought-by-Grid-to-turn-off-turbines.html

ginjawarrior said:

methinks someone hasnt researched his ideas thoroughly


"Operators of wind farms were paid £34 million to switch off turbines during gales - millions more than previously thought - it was reported. ........
....The wind farms are paid to stop by the National Grid, which cannot cope with the extra energy produced by the high winds. "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9578104/Wind-farm-operators-paid-millions-more-than-previously-thought-by-Grid-to-turn-off-turbines.html

Click to expand...

Upgrading your grid to manage 220-240v might be a good move too...just sayin'.

since the 1970's demark has invested heavily in wind turbines meaning it has the highest per capita wind production and about 20% of energy used

their Co2 in tonnes per capita was 8.4 in 2008

since the 1970's france has invested heavily in nuclear power plants with the highest per capita nuclear production and about 78.8% of energy used

their CO2 in tonnes per capita was 6.1 in 2008

in a world where its agreed that CO2 is bad and that something has to be done about it then which one of the 2 examples above is doing more to fix that problem?

abandonconflict said:

Click to expand...

very twee you've got nothing but emotive pics left

its one of my big bugbears of this whole thing

on the right theres near on blanket denial of the whole CO2 is damaging this world thing

then on the left theres the people that think that alternative energy is the answer to this problem

and stick the nimby's in there too and it becomes impossible to get a sensible discussion on whats needed

this planet is in trouble and descending the discussion into inanities is as much part of the problem as the deniers

ginjawarrior said:

very twee you've got nothing but emotive pics left

its one of my big bugbears of this whole thing

on the right theres near on blanket denial of the whole CO2 is damaging this world thing

then on the left theres the people that think that alternative energy is the answer to this problem

and stick the nimby's in there too and it becomes impossible to get a sensible discussion on whats needed

this planet is in trouble and descending the discussion into inanities is as much part of the problem as the deniers

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming any one answer. I'm just finding it rather humorous that you are insisting on getting the last word that Nuclear is THE answer.

You're crazy, I don't pay for power.

abandonconflict said:

I'm not claiming any one answer. I'm just finding it rather humorous that you are insisting on getting the last word that Nuclear is THE answer.

You're crazy, I don't pay for power.

Click to expand...

atm it is and apart from your in practical "im not paying for power" argument i'm not sure you've had anything to argue against it apart from cutting down but you never say by how much

your every bit as damaging as the deniers

but i guess at least you can feel all warm and fuzzy at your low lattitude with your pv panels

ginjawarrior said:

atm it is and apart from your in practical "im not paying for power" argument i'm not sure you've had anything to argue against it apart from cutting down but you never say by how much

your every bit as damaging as the deniers

but i guess at least you can feel all warm and fuzzy at your low lattitude with your pv panels

Click to expand...

I haven't been arguing against it.

How hard is that to understand?

Seriously bro, you have this fascist way of thinking like I am either in %100 agreement with your views or I'm your foe.

I am seeking to see to it that individual responsibility is not overshadowed by a desire for centralized control. There is still much you can do to stop supporting the current energy infrastructure even at your latitude. Maybe not enough to become independent, as I have, but you just gotta consider things less black and white. Sitting with your thumb up your ass burning fossil fuel and waiting for nuclear reactors to be built is doing much less to help than supplying your own power or at least cutting down on usage.

I know your argument, that you have no choice seeing as how you live in an urban area at a northern latitude. I wonder how people grow any crops there...

http://www.ktva.com/news/local/Do-Solar-Panels-Work-in-Alaska-115326449.html

abandonconflict said:

I haven't been arguing against it.

How hard is that to understand?

Click to expand...

your not for it though your pet project is self sufficiency

Seriously bro, you have this fascist way of thinking like I am either in %100 agreement with your views or I'm your foe.

Click to expand...

nice ad hominem there or is it poisoning the well... i see a problem this planet faces and while the right deny's this problem out of hand i try to discuss the problem with the people who at least accept the problem

I am seeking to see to it that individual responsibility is not overshadowed by a desire for centralized control.

Click to expand...

ahh the libertarian card that will fix it

There is still much you can do to stop supporting the current energy infrastructure even at your latitude. Maybe not enough to become independent, as I have, but you just gotta consider things less black and white. Sitting with your thumb up your ass burning fossil fuel and waiting for nuclear reactors to be built is doing much less to help than supplying your own power or at least cutting down on usage.

Click to expand...

i have repeatedly said thru out this conversation that i have very low usage of energy and even if i did personally become fully self sufficient then i would still watch the world around me fall to shit how ever warm and fuzzy i felt inside

one of the biggest setbacks against nuclear power is public perception of it here in the uk there are companies that will build plants without government grants but are being stopped by public hysteria and NIMBY's

I know your argument, that you have no choice seeing as how you live in an urban area at a northern latitude. I wonder how people grow any crops there...

http://www.ktva.com/news/local/Do-Solar-Panels-Work-in-Alaska-115326449.html

Click to expand...

no even if i did live at a lower lattiude then i would still not be advocating renewables as our main power source atm

and to that article

"While the panels are made to harness the sun's energy, believe it or not the panels can even work during the night time.

"We have panels that actually produce a small amount of usable power. On a full moon on a clear night, 20 below, full moon, clear night you can get reflected. You can actually get power from the reflected light of the moon off the sunlight, off the moon," said Harrison."


***walks away shaking my head in dismay***

ginjawarrior said:

your not for it though your pet project is self sufficiency

nice ad hominem there or is it poisoning the well... i see a problem this planet faces and while the right deny's this problem out of hand i try to discuss the problem with the people who at least accept the problem
ahh the libertarian card that will fix it

i have repeatedly said thru out this conversation that i have very low usage of energy and even if i did personally become fully self sufficient then i would still watch the world around me fall to shit how ever warm and fuzzy i felt inside

one of the biggest setbacks against nuclear power is public perception of it here in the uk there are companies that will build plants without government grants but are being stopped by public hysteria and NIMBY's

no even if i did live at a lower lattiude then i would still not be advocating renewables as our main power source atm

and to that article

"While the panels are made to harness the sun's energy, believe it or not the panels can even work during the night time.

"We have panels that actually produce a small amount of usable power. On a full moon on a clear night, 20 below, full moon, clear night you can get reflected. You can actually get power from the reflected light of the moon off the sunlight, off the moon," said Harrison."


***walks away shaking my head in dismay***

Click to expand...

TL;DR

you're at a point where you want to spend 5 pages splitting hairs like you did in that other thread where you went on a diatribe about how cannabis isn't medicine

Then you conclude with ***walks away shaking my head in dismay*** but you're absolutely intent on having the last word about Nuclear power being the savior of mankind. You're a clown.

abandonconflict said:

TL;DR

you're at a point where you want to spend 5 pages splitting hairs like you did in that other thread where you went on a diatribe about how cannabis isn't medicine

Then you conclude with ***walks away shaking my head in dismay*** but you're absolutely intent on having the last word about Nuclear power being the savior of mankind. You're a clown.

Click to expand...

the other thread was you claiming that they had "proven cannabis didnt cause cancer" you were wrong in that

im not looking for the last word im having a discussion it really isnt my fault you've run out of things to say

but this isnt just about you theres plenty of lurkers here who will see you've run out of arguments to the extent where you pretnd you cant read my posts

ginjawarrior said:

the other thread was you claiming that they had "proven cannabis didnt cause cancer" you were wrong in that

im not looking for the last word im having a discussion it really isnt my fault you've run out of things to say

but this isnt just about you theres plenty of lurkers here who will see you've run out of arguments to the extent where you pretnd you cant read my posts

Click to expand...

KK cool, Nuclear power, cannabis causes cancer, discussion, last word, got it.

abandonconflict said:

KK cool, Nuclear power, cannabis causes cancer, discussion, last word, got it.

Click to expand...

and again with the strawman have you forgotten the discussion that you just brought up?

go on show me anywhere that i've claimed cannabis causes cancer please do im waiting...

im just talking you seem to need to get a last bitchy word in

You still trying to convince me that I should buy nuclear power?