RobbieB

Greta Rides Again?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Alan H said:

What will happen to nuclear waste storage sites?    

Plesae see Poeste # 4740                                  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Plesae see Poeste # 4740                                  :)

Snags, I only read this thread about once a week, and don't keep up with it, so I miss stuff. There IS a little bit of good stuff here. Most of it is people I have on ignore, presumably going on  about people they don't like, sock puppets, the size of other people's sex organs,  and calling each other names. Heck, people I don't have on ignore are doing plenty of those things, already!

 

So I generally avoid the Greta Threads. One thing it's done, though, is show me what some people are really like, so I've been able to make my overall SA experience more pleasant by making them disappear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alan H said:

Global BOOM. Wow. Big BOOM. Big FUCKING boom...worldwide BOOM.

Kind of reminds me of a poem about the guns of World War One.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and the word counts posts!  Snags, they're great!

"that guy I don't like posted eight times in this page, and I only posted three times so I'm a better person than he is".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Not anyone important.

I can tell you don't care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alan H said:

Um, Gaucho Greg....

you're actually trying to argue that a supervolcano..like the  Caldera under Glacier Natl Park....that going off, or the Long Valley Caldera in California... is a reason to support nuclear energy?

Ah, Greg... if one of those goes, it'll be a mass extinction like the Permian extinction. I kind of think we'll have other things to worry about...oh and

think about it.  Global BOOM. Wow. Big BOOM. Big FUCKING boom...worldwide BOOM.

What will happen to nuclear power plants?  What will happen to nuclear waste storage sites?     Right.  Gotcha.  EVen if THAT doesn't happen, what will happen to all the leetle wires that distribute the energy to your house and mine so that we can argue on SA?

 

Right.

cheers.

OK, fine, not super volcano (if you don't care about having any energy source to preserve any humanity in a worst case scenario).  How about just a big volcano, a Krakatoa type event... you know, the type that caused the little ice age?  Yeah, those never happen, right?  No need to be prepared with an energy source that would not be cut off by a year where the sun rarely shines, like:

Quote

 

1991
Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.[3]
1883
The explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) may have contributed to volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887–1888 included powerful blizzards.[4] Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide. However, the period of cold winters started with the 1882-1883 winter, months before the Krakatoa eruption.
1815
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia caused what came to be known as the "Year Without a Summer" of 1816. Europe, still recuperating from the Napoleonic Wars, suffered from food shortages. Food riots broke out in the United Kingdom and France, and grain warehouses were looted. The violence was worst in landlocked Switzerland, where famine caused the government to declare a national emergency. Huge storms and abnormal rainfall with flooding of Europe's major rivers (including the Rhine) are attributed to the event, as is the August frost. A major typhus epidemic occurred in Ireland between 1816 and 1819, precipitated by the famine. An estimated 100,000 Irish perished during this period. A BBC documentary, using figures compiled in Switzerland, estimated that the fatality rates in 1816 were twice that of average years, giving an approximate European fatality total of 200,000 deaths. The corn crop in Northeastern North America failed, due to mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador. The crop failures in New England, Canada, and parts of Europe also caused the price of wheat, grains, meat, vegetables, butter, milk, and flour to rise sharply.
1783
The eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island's livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the Icelandic population. It has been estimated that 23,000 British people died from the poisoning.[5] Northern hemisphere temperatures dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption. The winter of 1783–1784 was very severe, and estimated to have caused 8,000 additional deaths in the UK. The meteorological impact of Laki continued, contributing significantly to several years of extreme weather in Europe. In France, the sequence of extreme weather events contributed significantly to an increase in poverty and famine that may have contributed to the French Revolution in 1789.[6] Laki was only one factor in a decade of climatic disruption, as Grímsvötn was erupting from 1783 to 1785, and there may have been an unusually strong El Niño effect from 1789 to 1793.[7] A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783[8] blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 in North America on volcanic dust coming from this eruption, though Franklin's proposal has been questioned.[9]
1600
The Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601–1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany, wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.[10]
1452 or 1453
A cataclysmic eruption of the submarine volcano Kuwae caused worldwide disruptions.
1315-1317
The Great Famine of 1315–1317 in Europe may have been precipitated by a volcanic event,[11] perhaps that of Mount Tarawera, New Zealand, lasting about five years.[12][13]
1257
The 1257 Samalas eruption in Indonesia. The eruption left behind a large caldera next to Rinjani, with Lake Segara Anak inside it.[14] This eruption probably had a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7, making it one of the largest eruptions of the current Holocene epoch.
An examination of ice cores showed a large spike in sulfate deposition around 1257. This was strong evidence of a large eruption having occurred somewhere in the world. In 2013, scientists proved that the eruption occurred at Mount Samalas. This eruption had four distinct phases, alternately creating eruption columns reaching tens of kilometres into the atmosphere and pyroclastic flows burying large parts of Lombok Island. The flows destroyed human habitations, including the city of Pamatan. Ash from the eruption fell as far away as Java Island. The volcano deposited more than 10 cubic kilometres (2.4 cu mi) of material. The eruption was witnessed by people who recorded it on palm leaves, the Babad Lombok. Later volcanic activity created additional volcanic centres in the caldera, including the Barujari cone that remains active. The aerosols injected into the atmosphere reduced the solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, which cooled the atmosphere for several years and led to famines and crop failures in Europe and elsewhere, although the exact scale of the temperature anomalies and their consequences is still debated. It is possible that the eruption helped trigger the Little Ice Age.
945 or 946
The 946 eruption of Paektu Mountain is believed to have caused a major global climatic impact, with regional anomalies of colder weather and snowfall from 945 to 948.
535
The extreme weather events of 535–536 are most likely linked to a volcanic eruption. The latest theorised explanation is the Tierra Blanca Joven (TBJ) eruption of the Ilopango caldera in central El Salvador.[15]

 

 

 

But again, you clearly show your ignorance of the issue of nuclear fuel storage.  Do yourself a favor and actually research the issue through scientific/engineering journals on modern plants and proposed new age plants.  Those of us that have done so, and are not committed to some bizarre desire to emotionally condemn science and engineering, recognize the need to replace coal and gas with a clean energy source that does not take over massive amounts of land & sea and provide erratic, unpredictable energy production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an emotional condemnation, Greg.

It's isotopes that are radioactive...they emit alpha particles and gamma particles for millions of years, Greg.  That's not "emotion". It's radioactive decay.   I object to creating tons of deadly material today in order for us, today, to have more conveniences...on the hopeful maybe, that maybe someday, some yet-uninvented technology will learn how to re-use those isotopes.

It's very logical. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

I can tell you don't care.

Mrs. cares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I went to UCSB, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the funting cuggery buck this thread hasn't been moved to GA or PA is beyond me... any tangential relevance to this thread was sharkjumped 40 pages ago

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Probably a good move for you fastyacht to take some time out and reflect on what Monsoon said above. Whether or not you intended to misinform or make false statements, you have.

 

Considering Monsoon makes judgements and accusations on what people think why the fuck would anyone give a toss what he thinks. Disagree or think differently and he just puts you in the asshole box.

So he is treated like you, not worth much effort or concern.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

But again, you clearly show your ignorance of the issue of nuclear fuel storage.  Do yourself a favor and actually research the issue through scientific/engineering journals on modern plants and proposed new age plants.  Those of us that have done so, and are not committed to some bizarre desire to emotionally condemn science and engineering, recognize the need to replace coal and gas with a clean energy source that does not take over massive amounts of land & sea and provide erratic, unpredictable energy production.

So GauchoGreg, we hear you clearly, you believe that the Germans have got it wrong.

Understand that by labeling those who don't agree with you as you have, includes labeling those in Germany who are very well informed and have researched the issue properly.

Good thing that Germany will be using more solar, and not an energy source that takes "...over massive amounts of land & sea and provide erratic, unpredictable energy production". It is great that there are well qualified people that have actually researched "... the issue through scientific/engineering journals on modern plants and proposed new age plants" with regards to solar. 

Here's what some say:

Quote

With Germany set to disconnect the last of its nuclear reactors in 2022 and the coalition government agreeing on the same fate for coal, by 2038 at the latest, the need for a medium-term replacement for half the country’s generation assets is an urgent one.

The German Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar) and Intersolar trade conference organizer The Smarter E tasked Bonn-based market research company EuPD Research to examine scenarios about how to avoid a deficit in electricity supply.

The resulting study, Energiewende im Kontext von Atom und Kohleausstieg – Perspektiven im Strommarkt bis 2040, has pointed to renewables, and in particular solar as the way forward to 2040.

The short-term focus is on PV, which can be deployed more quickly than wind power generation assets, is popular with the public, is readily available and has low generation costs. With electricity consumption in the country set to rise from 530 TWh last year to 880 TWh in 2040, Germany would need an installed PV capacity of 162 GW by 2030 to help fill the void left by nuclear and coal, according to EuPD Research. By 2040, the figure would increase to more than 250 GW.

Storage: 59 GWh needed

The variability of solar power means a significant increase in energy storage capacity will also be needed, stated the analysts. The study posits a 30-fold expansion in storage will be required, from the current 1.9 GWh of capacity to 59 GWh.

Double-digit gigawatt-scale capacity for electrolysis would also be required to counter the fall in PV power output that occurs in winter, added EuPD Research, and power-to-gas and green hydrogen roll-out is also urgently needed to electrify heating and transport. For electromobility alone, the report predicts an additional 70 TWh will need to be generated in 2040.

Broken down, the report predicts Germany would need its large scale PV generation capacity to rise from 15.7 GW to 126.7 GW by 2040. Some 91 GW of commercial rooftop capacity will be needed, up from 24 GW today and residential systems will have to offer 35 GW at that point, up from 6.6 GW today.

Wind power, biomass and other renewables will also have to contribute, stated the study. Onshore wind capacity will have to rise 3 GW per year to reach 90 GW by 2030 and 115 GW by 2040. Offshore capacity would have to reach 7.7 GW next year, 15 GW ten years later and 29.4 GW by 2040.

Source: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/09/13/germany-will-need-160-gw-of-solar-by-2030-to-prevent-power-shortages/

---

So when GauchoGreg says stuff like:

2 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

Yes, I know that it was just a conceptual to give an idea of the land coverage need, but it does not change either of these points, regardless of where the solar farms are, at any given point in time, half of the world is in night, and a ton is under cloud cover, and maintenance takes a bunch offline, etc., and so transmission & storage are necessary and result in a ton of waste.  So, the theoretical area of land needed for solar to supply the energy need is easily way less than half of the actual land area that would be needed.  My guess is that map did not consider that.

Then, do you put your eggs in the basket of reliance on wind and solar and then have some climactic event like a super-volcano erupting and completely destroying your solar energy production like we see every 100-150 years?  "Oops... wish we had developed a bunch of nuclear plants..... I guess we are all fucked now that those PV panels are nothing but ash collectors". 

AGAIN, the point is that we (those of us who use reason and logic) should all call out those who are into banning nuclear as the idiots that they are as they are hurting humanity and environment, not helping it.

GauchoGreg is criticizing others for not researching nuclear properly, though what would happen if we applied those same criticisms to GauchoGreg's approach to solar?

Having PV cells covered by ash, having huge areas covered by solar panels, or the possibility of solar panels not charging at night - are all risks the Germans are prepared to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no dog in this race, but the thing that bugs me about most of the discussions around energy and global warming etc is the basic premise that we have to come up with options to replace fossil to meet our current needs. The idea of reducing our current needs really doesn't seem to be paid anything more than lip service. I just can't see a future for us without the necessity for significant sacrifice in this respect. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Considering Monsoon makes judgements and accusations on what people think why the fuck would anyone give a toss what he thinks. Disagree or think differently and he just puts you in the asshole box.

So he is treated like you, not worth much effort or concern.

Why would anyone "give a toss what he [Monsoon] thinks"? For fastyacht, who certainly appeared to, you will need to ask fastyacht. We get an indication that fastyacht believes this when fastyacht wrote "We are all non-experts at nuclear reactor design and climate science. Monsoon apparently is an expert but does not engage." And when Monsoon did engage (prior to fastyacht making the claim he didn't), he said the exact opposite of what fastyacht was putting forward. I can appreciate you saying you don't care Gissie, because mentioned you by name and indicated that he thought you to be an 'ignorant clown'. I want you to know Gissie that I have resisted to call you an ignorant clown - though you don't care what I think, right Gissie?

I'd be happy if I wasn't treated with much effort or concern, however by pointing out your errors has meant I have become the focus of more than half of your posts here in this thread Gissie.

So here's a test, if you genuinely don't care what I say, then this message (if you read it) is not worth responding to, nor even talking about. If you do either Gissie, we know that you have been reading my messages and making the effort to react. I hope you don't but bet you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Weyalan said:

I have no dog in this race, but the thing that bugs me about most of the discussions around energy and global warming etc is the basic premise that we have to come up with options to replace fossil to meet our current needs. The idea of reducing our current needs really doesn't seem to be paid anything more than lip service. I just can't see a future for us without the necessity for significant sacrifice in this respect. 

Who is going first?

How big cuts are enough?

Who gets to tell all the under-developed countries that tough shit, the energy budget is overdrawn and you can't have any?

I've already made it crystal clear that I'm not going back to even early 20C tech levels, especially in medicine & dentistry, if I have any say in it. And I'm not the only one.

FKT

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Who is going first?

How big cuts are enough?

Who gets to tell all the under-developed countries that tough shit, the energy budget is overdrawn and you can't have any?

I've already made it crystal clear that I'm not going back to even early 20C tech levels, especially in medicine & dentistry, if I have any say in it. And I'm not the only one.

FKT

Greta said she would be happy to tell all the underdeveloped countries they have to stay the way they are until we sort out a better way. Except they don't seem to care or give her a pedestal to perch on. No adulation and bowing before her saintness from the poor of the world.

So why would she bother.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

image.png.a788274adba8713ffa5ad6b889676bb2.png

      Dunning-Kruger

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Who is going first?

How big cuts are enough?

Who gets to tell all the under-developed countries that tough shit, the energy budget is overdrawn and you can't have any?

I've already made it crystal clear that I'm not going back to even early 20C tech levels, especially in medicine & dentistry, if I have any say in it. And I'm not the only one.

FKT

What make you think that reducing our energy needs is going backwards to 20C tech levels ?

As a sailor and an engineer, you might have noticed that modern race boats are going faster by reducing drag rather than increasing power. This idea that you always need to increase power is so 20th century!!! Don't stay stuck in the past, embrace the new millennium!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Who is going first?

How big cuts are enough?

Who gets to tell all the under-developed countries that tough shit, the energy budget is overdrawn and you can't have any?

I've already made it crystal clear that I'm not going back to even early 20C tech levels, especially in medicine & dentistry, if I have any say in it. And I'm not the only one.

FKT

To be fair, there's plenty one can do to reduce their overall consumption of energy and other non renewable resources. My wife and I live green to the almost eccentric extreme. Been doing it now for probably around 10 years or so and while I'm sure we come across as a bit weird with our lifestyle to some of those that know us, I don't feel we are disadvantaged in any way.

In fact, one plus of the lifestyle is the smug feeling one gets when reading the holier than though bullshit rantings by wankers like Bruce preaching the same rehashed message that it is basically a] Up to the government to do something or; b] It's all the fault of a handful of big corporations or; c] The planet needs to be covered in windmills and solar panels. Nope. Ultimately the buck stops with each and every individual on the planet. Reduce consumption at the individual level and you directly impact the generation of upstream pollution. You don't need to wait for Italy to cover itself in solar panels, you just need to do the simple things like harden the fuck up, open a window and turn the fucking air conditioner off (as just one of a myriad of examples).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Toecutter's Ghost said:

Ask Bruce. He'll know.

That's a bit rich. He made a well argued post and you replied "Dunning-Kruger" instead of criticizing his point constructively. I wonder who's suffering from the syndrome as you seem to think that we should have a blind faith in what you say/think.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

To be fair, there's plenty one can do to reduce their overall consumption of energy and other non renewable resources. My wife and I live green to the almost eccentric extreme. Been doing it now for probably around 10 years or so and while I'm sure we come across as a bit weird with our lifestyle to some of those that know us, I don't feel we are disadvantaged in any way.

Done that myself. I live on a few acres, got lots of fruit trees, fish in the bay, more wildlife than I like to think about. Hydro power. Built my own house using a lot of recycled materials. Do a lot of swaps/trades rather than just spend money, though I don't need to. I live a very comfortable life and it's pretty low impact. Started 20+ years back.

And yeah efficiency gains have slowed the need for more power, pity the increase in population makes the power demand go the other way. Hence not enough to sustain 21C tech if we have a fixed/reducing power availability & expanding demand via population increase or demand from currently un-serviced countries for it. There's simply no way around that problem if you posit a cap on energy - which is what I was responding to above. It wasn't ME that suggested it, I'm merely pointing out some of the consequences.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fastyacht said:

We already have the stockpile. Made by our parents. What--you would rather just shove it down the hole then? I think you missed my point entirely.

But Ponzi is the wrong analogy. We aren't hiding anything. The opposite in fact.

It isn't an analogy, it is the reality. The more waste you produce, the more expensive the storage becomes as quantity add up, to pay back the higher storage cost while maintaining margins, you need to produce more.

Nuclear energy is becoming more and more expensive mainly because all the associated costs weren't accounted for. At the beginning they were dumping the waste in the sea. Obviously, that's cheaper than storing properly!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Panoramix said:

Nuclear energy is becoming more and more expensive mainly because all the associated costs weren't accounted for. At the beginning they were dumping the waste in the sea. Obviously, that's cheaper than storing properly!!!

True. Don't think we've forgotten about Mururoa Atoll yet either.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

True. Don't think we've forgotten about Mururoa Atoll yet either.

FKT

That was indeed a disgrace.

It is actually a great example of "tragedy of the commons". If you are in Paris, keeping scary your nuclear submarines might seem more important than preserving the ecosystem of a region on the other side of the planet. Politicians never learn, to Trump or Scott Morrison keeping happy a few voters in communities benefiting from coal is more important than preserving ecosystems across the globe people rely on to make a living. That's precisely why in my view we should all ostracise these people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I've already made it crystal clear that I'm not going back to even early 20C tech levels, especially in medicine & dentistry, if I have any say in it. And I'm not the only one.

How could going back to 20th century tech levels even happen? From giving up fossil fuels?

Very interesting to consider, so lets say fossil fuel based energy was stopped at the source right now.

New Zealand would take a week or two to run out of fuel, though remaining stocks would be earmarked for essential services.

For me, that would interrupt some transport, though mostly I already walk to where I need to go. Eventually, I'd probably buy an EV, an e-bike or a mountain bike (as I'd expect demand would make getting an EV difficult). There are a lot of horses locally and I know locals who would use them.

Imported goods would slow down, until alternate means can be found. Sailing ships might start to be used again - and those with sailing boats will be suddenly in demand to get goods to and from NZ. Local industry would change in response to products in high demand. High in demand would include solar, electric motors and batteries. Other items like clothes and shoes would be made locally (The vast majority are currently imported). Plastics will be made with non-petrochemical based polymers - expect that tech to develop rapidly.

Items, particularly foods and timber, would not longer be able to be easily exported, creating an enormous local surplus.

My local clinic would operate much as it has, as would the local hospital. Getting to the hospital would be difficult, though they already have plans to have an electric ferry, I'd take a private boat across the habour and would be able to walk the balance of the distance. If unable to walk I'd ask help from a neighbor who has a Nissan Leaf. (I would imagine that the ambulance service would convert to electric pretty quickly.) I can't see how dentistry would not be impacted.

New Zealand already has 80% renewable energy, so we'd have to cut as we'd not just need to find another 20%, but much more as electric vehicles increased demand. I'd say that a debate about closing NZ's only aluminium smelter would rage as some would say we need the power, others the aluminium.

None of this scenario would mean we would need to give up computers, though of course some components would need replacing.

Overall, New Zealand would be in pretty good shape.

Going to 20th century tech is perhaps the wrong way to look at it, because that would mean Windows 98 or Mac OS 9, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

That's a bit rich. He made a well argued post and you replied "Dunning-Kruger" instead of criticizing his point constructively. I wonder who's suffering from the syndrome as you seem to think that we should have a blind faith in what you say/think.

You do know he has me on ignore, right?

He couldn't stand the heat (pardon the pun) it seems.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

You do know he has me on ignore, right?

He couldn't stand the heat (pardon the pun) it seems.

Sorry, I don't follow all the "I've put xxx on ignore" bitching. @Bob Perry is the only person here who pretends to have me on ignore, that's alright if it works for him. I don't need the computer to hide some posts for me, I just ignore people by scrolling past their post, that works for me. Unless you are a very bland person you will never please everybody.

I suspect that @Bruce Hudson can stand the heat, exchanging with people who throw insults rather than argue their point is pretty pointless and boring you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Done that myself. I live on a few acres, got lots of fruit trees, fish in the bay, more wildlife than I like to think about. Hydro power. Built my own house using a lot of recycled materials. Do a lot of swaps/trades rather than just spend money, though I don't need to. I live a very comfortable life and it's pretty low impact. Started 20+ years back.

And yeah efficiency gains have slowed the need for more power, pity the increase in population makes the power demand go the other way. Hence not enough to sustain 21C tech if we have a fixed/reducing power availability & expanding demand via population increase or demand from currently un-serviced countries for it. There's simply no way around that problem if you posit a cap on energy - which is what I was responding to above. It wasn't ME that suggested it, I'm merely pointing out some of the consequences.

FKT

I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. We split our time between living onboard and a 28 m2 shed. But here's the thing, and I've probably mentioned this before; 90% of the general populace doesn't give a flying fuck about climate change and consequently does absolutely nothing to mitigate it. The only way to get their attention is to have a social media frenzy driven off the shirttails of a natural disaster like the bush fires. Social media rages with varying degrees of indignance, denial and a plethora of comedy central worthy comments. The alarmists swoop like vultures to a dying lamb while those in power smile and wave, but it's a safe bet in three months it'll all be mostly forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Sorry, I don't follow all the "I've put xxx on ignore" bitching. @Bob Perry is the only person here who pretends to have me on ignore, that's alright if it works for him. I don't need the computer to hide some posts for me, I just ignore people by scrolling past their post, that works for me. Unless you are a very bland person you will never please everybody.

I suspect that @Bruce Hudson can stand the heat, exchanging with people who throw insults rather than argue their point is pretty pointless and boring you know...

If Bob Perry has you on ignore, you must truly be a dick. Bruce's method of "engagement" when he is struggling to win an argument is deflection as others will attest.

And I've never ignored anyone either. If you were serious about wanting to debate climate change a forum with the words "sailing" and "anarchy" in it's domain name it's one of the last places on the Internet you'd choose to do it. He deserves everything he cops, IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

That's a bit rich. He made a well argued post and you replied "Dunning-Kruger" instead of criticizing his point constructively. I wonder who's suffering from the syndrome as you seem to think that we should have a blind faith in what you say/think.

Actually he twisted my earlier statement to utter backwardness.

Oh never mind.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

And I've never ignored anyone either. 

There is something immature about needing to use the ignore function. I guess the Gen-Z is going to be screwed out in the real world when there is no ignore button.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fastyacht said:

Actually he twisted my earlier statement to utter backwardness.

Oh never mind.

Sure. Make a vague statement. Please back that up by quoting exactly what you said, then show exactly where I "twisted" your "earlier statement to utter backwardness."

If you don't, I'll take it that this statement is part of your continued attack against me, and has no basis in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

There is something immature about needing to use the ignore function. I guess the Gen-Z is going to be screwed out in the real world when there is no ignore button.

In the case of Bruce and Wofsey, it just saves on the effort and potential RSI of scrolling down. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mad said:

In the case of Bruce and Wofsey, it just saves on the effort and potential RSI of scrolling down. ;)

Excellent positive thing to say Mad. Just lovely. 

28,075 posts, often responds to Jack who posts several times an hour... 6500 likes... and he's concerned that he's going to get RSI by scrolling past two who's combined posts are a fraction of his own? Or just running with the mob, attempting to bully others. 

What was the wink for? To show you were just joking? In my view, that's about as funny as genocide - because that in the end is based on hate too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monsoon specifically posted rhat he won't engage. Bruce then says "see he engaged you are false."

Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Monsoon specifically posted rhat he won't engage. Bruce then says "see he engaged you are false."

Ugh.

That's it?

Ugh indeed.

You are no misrepresenting yourself. You said:

13 hours ago, fastyacht said:

We are all non-experts at nuclear reactor design and climate science. Monsoon apparently is an expert but does not engage.

Think it through fastyacht. When someone says that they "are giving up engaging with people like you" - they are actually engaging. 

You did not say that he said that he doesn't engage. You said that he did not engage.

For example, ever heard a child tell you that they are not talking to you?

Again, here's what Monsoon said:

On 1/12/2020 at 1:44 AM, monsoon said:

I won't answer this for Bruce, whose endless patience with you ignorant clowns I have come to admire, but I'll give you my CV if you like. I published my first peer-reviewed paper in 1985. My most recent was last month. I've first author papers, based in my own data, in Science, Nature, Nature Geoscience and PNAS among other. I've been studying climate variability in the tropics for the last 25 years. So, I feel I can legitimately call myself a 'climate scientist'. And I'll let you in on a small truth... you, LB, Toejam, Gissie, none of you, know a damn thing about our climate system. Not a fucking thing. Why you all think you do is, I suppose, some aspect of Dunning-Kruger. As a test, explain the term 'radiative forcing' without resort to Google. Bet you can't. Bruce has won, because he keeps at you with data and real information and the lot of you have been reduced to name-calling little children who are now attempting to bully Bruce off the thread.

I gave up engaging people like you all some time ago because you are immune to reason, blind to data, smug in you ignorance. It's useless. If you were truly interested in learning anything you go to the IPCC website and read a bit. But, no. That would cause you to have to question your pre-drawn conclusions based on 'alternative' facts. Far easier to pretend the IPCC and the thousands of scientists who provided data and helped write the reports are 'biased' or 'political'. Another small truth - that's a Big Fat Fucking Lie.  The IPCC reports are summations of the consensus of the vast majority of scientists. You know, the people who actually do understand climate. But, hey, don't bother with them. 

Most of you are likely far better sailors than I. So allow me a parable. You're meandering down the dock and come across a fellow standing alongside his sailboat. Let's call him Frank. Frank starts talking about his many adventures in sailing and then begins to give you advice about how best to trim you sails, the latest in sailcloth fibers. Did you know how useful telltales can be? Oh and how about his new weather app? Then you look a bit closer at his vessel. Hmmmmm... Mac 25. You look at his cleat knots. Hmmmm.... loop over loop over loop. Frank is droning on And, because you genuinely know a fucking lot about  sailing, you know Frank knows not a fucking thing. Well, when it comes to climate. You are Frank.

Above, Mosoon directly refers to specific people in response to what they have said. Like it or not, that's engaging with the people he responded to, by name no less. Your statement shortly after saying that Monsoon doesn't engage was false, because he just had.

So when you said:

34 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Actually he twisted my earlier statement to utter backwardness.

The example you gave above does not support what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go away.

IF you read back to BOTH of the two posts Monsoon made, and what I said to monsoon, you would actually understand that he chooses not to engage (on the issue!!!!!). God you are frustrating to "talk" to.

This is it.

Go away.

If you post my username ONE MORE TIME, I will go get Ian Dubin and send him your way ;-) In all seriousness, I'm done. Go ahead take postshots (like you just did last night (well morning for you). How many times did you write "fastyacht"?

See, you want to get me going but I'm done, no interested any longer in talking with you. Just not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Go away.

IF you read back to BOTH of the two posts Monsoon made, and what I said to monsoon, you would actually understand that he chooses not to engage (on the issue!!!!!). God you are frustrating to "talk" to.

This is it.

Go away.

If you post my username ONE MORE TIME, I will go get Ian Dubin and send him your way ;-) In all seriousness, I'm done. Go ahead take postshots (like you just did last night (well morning for you). How many times did you write "fastyacht"?

See, you want to get me going but I'm done, no interested any longer in talking with you. Just not.

Thank you fastyacht for conceding that you did not write originally what you intended.

Thank you for the invitation to go away. Respectfully, fastyacht, your request is declined.

I have no idea what you think Ian Dubin would do, nor why you winked, and I'm not at all interested in finding out.

I have no interest in 'getting you going', though as you can see, I am happy to defend myself against your attacks on me. There are no winners when someone is attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not read this message.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

image.thumb.png.9acb39d0739b3a8344f512b7bb279aff.png

 

Going around in circles. I put it all up to his utter lack of ability in poesy. Perhaps NOBODY understood what I meant about Monsoon not engaging. That's the gaslight part. Because if NOBODY understood, then I'm not being gaslit.

Oh well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Go away.

IF you read back to BOTH of the two posts Monsoon made, and what I said to monsoon, you would actually understand that he chooses not to engage (on the issue!!!!!). God you are frustrating to "talk" to.

This is it.

Go away.

If you post my username ONE MORE TIME, I will go get Ian Dubin and send him your way ;-) In all seriousness, I'm done. Go ahead take postshots (like you just did last night (well morning for you). How many times did you write "fastyacht"?

See, you want to get me going but I'm done, no interested any longer in talking with you. Just not.

This is so much easier

You've chosen to ignore content by Bruce Hudson. Options 

You've chosen to ignore content by Bruce Hudson. Options 

You've chosen to ignore content by Bruce Hudson. Options 
 
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alan H said:

It's not an emotional condemnation, Greg.

It's isotopes that are radioactive...they emit alpha particles and gamma particles for millions of years, Greg.  That's not "emotion". It's radioactive decay.   I object to creating tons of deadly material today in order for us, today, to have more conveniences...on the hopeful maybe, that maybe someday, some yet-uninvented technology will learn how to re-use those isotopes.

It's very logical. 

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, who the hell gives a fuck?

The point is that so what if alpha/gamma particles are released in a secure environment it is irrelevant that those particles are being emitted... and if the source material is then reprocessed and the emission source is reduced, all the better.  The world has massive amounts of room to store such materials (easily enough room on the sites of the power plants, which should continue to be used after being renovated/redeveloped), with the storage space demanded always to be far less room than the space that will be required to support the wind/solar generation facilities that would be required to replace the energy that could be provided by nuclear power producing the "spent" fuels.  It is a bogus argument.  And, why, by the way, should we not have "conveniences".  Why should we not have more power to provide energy for larger, more capable cars (emissions free), why not have more power to provide for desalination or heating roadways, construction, recycling and/ore reduction of waste, exploration, etc.?  The only reason having more "conveniences" (read, having more electrical power on  hand to facilitate the "conveniences") is a bad thing is if you see such in some weird religious manner as evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind convenience.

Powers for basic needs for 2 billion additional humans over next 30 years....

There were 3 billions 1960....for perspective....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alan H said:

BTW, I went to UCSB, too.

Go Gauchos...

Going full circle, the best class I ever took at UCSB, and my all time best professor there (my major was Environmental Studies), was Professor Mel Manalis, who taught "Energy & the Environment".  Outstanding class that covered the political, ethical, feasibility characteristics of various types of energy.  Much of the class was dedicated to nuclear.  Of course, as you know, UCSB is hardly some conservative bastion, and that major was WAY Left, but that class forced even the Green leftist students to recognize the insanity that had been the anti-nuke craze.  Specifically, arguments like the ones you have been discussing were debunked, and the long-term negative impacts of the blanket obstruction of nuclear (and specifically things like obstructing reprocessing/recycling "spent" fuel .... something our Military and the French were doing way back when I was taking that class) were having on the well being of the environment. 

So, be a critical thinker.... part of which is questioning what you already think and consider you could be wrong.  Your arguments are irrational and unreasoned.... the issue of nuclear "waste" is hardly a reason to ban the technology and deprive us of the best way to produce huge amounts of energy within a very small footprint, on-demand, when needed, and with no emissions.  If you don't give a damn about covering huge swaths of landscape with wind/solar farms, I guess it does not matter, but in a world with fewer and fewer remaining areas, I find the idea of blanketing areas like the Steens Mountain or North Carolina wetlands (actuall wind farm proposals) with such as abhorrent destruction of wilderness and sensitive habitats, far worse than having more nuclear plants and "dealing" with the "waste".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alan H said:

BTW, I went to UCSB, too.

Condolences, though at least it was scenic, sort of a state version of Pepperdine with a decent Physics school and not as weird as UCSC 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Going around in circles. I put it all up to his utter lack of ability in poesy. Perhaps NOBODY understood what I meant about Monsoon not engaging. That's the gaslight part. Because if NOBODY understood, then I'm not being gaslit.

Fastyacht, you are putting forward that someone, likely to be me, has an "utter lack of ability in poesy". That is another attack.

I suggest you stop making statements like that. And to answer your earlier question - no I don't live in a tree.

---

When Monsoon was engaging with you, and he said he wasn't, it would seem that you were blinded by what he said.  The alternate story you have put forward fastyacht, is that you meant something other than you wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

So GauchoGreg, we hear you clearly, you believe that the Germans have got it wrong.

Understand that by labeling those who don't agree with you as you have, includes labeling those in Germany who are very well informed and have researched the issue properly.

Good thing that Germany will be using more solar, and not an energy source that takes "...over massive amounts of land & sea and provide erratic, unpredictable energy production". It is great that there are well qualified people that have actually researched "... the issue through scientific/engineering journals on modern plants and proposed new age plants" with regards to solar. 

Here's what some say:

Source: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/09/13/germany-will-need-160-gw-of-solar-by-2030-to-prevent-power-shortages/

---

So when GauchoGreg says stuff like:

GauchoGreg is criticizing others for not researching nuclear properly, though what would happen if we applied those same criticisms to GauchoGreg's approach to solar?

Having PV cells covered by ash, having huge areas covered by solar panels, or the possibility of solar panels not charging at night - are all risks the Germans are prepared to take.

So, Germany, a northern European nation, relatively small relative to climate events, is dedicating their energy source to wind & solar, I find that idiotic.  Good for them, I guess.  But do realize that they will be captive to outside forces for their energy needs.

Again, you are an insufferable ass, as you have actually admitted my points are valid elsewhere, and are smart enough to understand my point is valid, wind/solar cannot replace coal, gas & nuclear without massive amounts of land dedicated to sourcing the energy, and so a nation like Germany will rely upon massive amounts of land & sea (for wind, solar, and hydro) and probably still have to buy energy from outside.  You are an insufferable ass because you have recognized the point that it is stupid to have a blanket ban on nuclear and yet still proceed to pump those who want to ban it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Weyalan said:

I have no dog in this race, but the thing that bugs me about most of the discussions around energy and global warming etc is the basic premise that we have to come up with options to replace fossil to meet our current needs. The idea of reducing our current needs really doesn't seem to be paid anything more than lip service. I just can't see a future for us without the necessity for significant sacrifice in this respect. 

Why?  Other than some druid-like believe that less is better, why?

I can make a very logical argument that MORE is better.  More electrical generation could make it possible to decommission hydro plants/dam and improve anadromous fish passage and spawning, open up increased farmland through removal of lakes and having the power to desalinate water, having the energy to convert our transportation fleets and expand them so that people have more freedom to move around and see their loved ones more, for creating materials that can be used for construction rather than cutting down trees or extracting stone from the earth, etc.

What is inherently good about not having more energy?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 8:55 AM, Gissie said:

I feel picked on now, Bruce hasn't put me on ignore. And with LB possibly going away forever how will I know what to do anymore.

Not sure I love this place anymore.

Looks like there's an Aussie ban inthe works. First Random now LB...we seriously arn't that Muslim!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

What is inherently good about not having more energy?

The ethics of providing more resources, (energy and food) to a population that has historically "misused" them is beyond the scope of my purview. Defining the optimum population, or percent of biomass goes to a divine level. 

The question of providing those resources in an ethical and sensible sustainable manner I can address. 

We collectively will benefit by providing the resources, that enable better life, measured in terms of health, longevity and leisure 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

So, Germany, a northern European nation, relatively small relative to climate events, is dedicating their energy source to wind & solar, I find that idiotic.  Good for them, I guess.  But do realize that they will be captive to outside forces for their energy needs.

Great to hear confirmation that your beliefs are not supported by the research I posted.

Quote

Again, you are an insufferable ass, as you have actually admitted my points are valid elsewhere, and are smart enough to understand my point is valid, wind/solar cannot replace coal, gas & nuclear without massive amounts of land dedicated to sourcing the energy, and so a nation like Germany will rely upon massive amounts of land & sea (for wind, solar, and hydro) and probably still have to buy energy from outside.  You are an insufferable ass because you have recognized the point that it is stupid to have a blanket ban on nuclear and yet still proceed to pump those who want to ban it.

Not only did I disagree, I posted a picture of Australia where it showed the total land required to generate the world's power needs by solar panels was a fraction of the size of Australia, even at 10% efficiency.

Stating something which is false (that I have acknowledged that your point is correct when I have said the exact opposite) then calling me an insufferable ass - after we both had let the topic go - is that an example of me being an "insufferable ass"? (If that is true then I am surprised that others haven't suggested we get a room.)

Personal attacks (like calling someone an insufferable ass) directly after falsely claiming I said some thing I didn't does not justify a personal attack.

Decommissioning the plants and replacing them with renewable energy sources is a good idea. The calculations have been done, I have quoted them and you haven't bothered to refute them. Germany will not be unreasonably covered with power generation. Nuclear is not the only way. Coal will be phased out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Scotland is looking to go carbon neutral in a short period of time. Between wind power tied to battery banks, they look to be on top of the problem ahead of the U.N. Climate Summit next November, according to BBC this morning. They have more information on their web site. 
 

It was the first time I heard I heard a Scot interviewed and understood what they were saying. It was enlightening 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Looks like there's an Aussie ban inthe works. First Random now LB...we seriously arn't that Muslim!!

LB has about 3 weeks left in exile, so people better get it off their chest soon before he is back to the task of protecting Anarchy for all. 

E12AE34B-5410-4F6D-AB84-F7CF845B28F0.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Actually he twisted my earlier statement to utter backwardness.

Oh never mind.

Where is the evidence to support this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Although I agree with you that they've discarded nuclear too quickly, they've diminished their CO2 emissions by 21.8% since 1990 whereas the USA have increased it by 0.4%.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

Sure they may have missed their targets but those targets are very high. Yes I can set myself the target to run 100m in 20 seconds and hit it, I will barely sweat and it won't hurt!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pano this has nothing to do with the US. JFC.

The point was that throwing nuke out first increases the total coal consumed by Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

 

The point was that throwing nuke out first increases the total coal consumed by Germany.

And Pano's point is that you were misled exactly as the article intended

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Meanwhile, Scotland is looking to go carbon neutral in a short period of time. Between wind power tied to battery banks, they look to be on top of the problem ahead of the U.N. Climate Summit next November, according to BBC this morning. They have more information on their web site. 
 

It was the first time I heard I heard a Scot interviewed and understood what they were saying. It was enlightening 

It's going to be interesting... there's a lot going on at the moment (Brexit, Indyref2, COP26...) and the targets are very ambitious. Headlines this morning are around Glasgow aiming to be "carbon neutral" by 2030... I haven't checked how they plan to define this but it's a fair sized city with a motorway running through it and a legacy of 1960s traffic planning. Not exactly a soft target.  Scotland as a whole has significant transport and domestic heating challenges due to a sparse population that currently depends on fossil fuel but would be a good example of what's achievable if sustainable technology could be pushed to a level that would enable a reasonably plausible claim of carbon neutrality to be made.

   There's not much song+dance being made about the connections but it seems to me that a country with a perceived economic dependency on the oil industry that's seeking independence would be able to make a much stronger case if it were a world leader in Green technology, a net exporter of renewable energy and did not have to rely on petroleum exports to sustain its economy... We're a long way from that at the moment but there's an opportunity to at least be seen as heading in the right direction.

 For reference- Electricity currently over 40% nuclear generation with no expectation that more will be built in the near term. Renewables also a bit over 40% and fossil the remainder.  What this doesn't include, and is often glossed over, is that most heating, industrial and transport is fossil fueled... so close to 90% of Scotland's actual energy usage comes from either fossil fuels or nuclear... with the nuclear plant expected to be closed from 2030: Hitting the 2030 targets will be difficult enough, continuing to do so no easier!

 Usefully, however, few are claiming it will be easy. 

Cheers,

               W.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When growing up my parents gave me the Kids Whole Earth Catalog. It was written by Stewart Brand. He advocated for "saving the earth" and was well out in front of what came to be pretty much all 20C environmental policies and whatnot. He's been focusing on these issues for well over 60 years. I find this Ted Talk by him to be rather enlightening.

Just watch it, it's all of 16 minutes. sober, well reasoned and I would argue, he is an authoritative figure in the world of climate change and more specifically what to do about it in a changing world.

I personally have been repelled by most recent enviro-hysterics. Stewart however makes it all more reasonable to consider how to address some truly daunting issues. But as the video is titled, 4 environmental heresies, he correctly identifies the greens themselves are in fact major barriers to progress due to their intransigence. (Religion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our dependence on fossil fuels years ago led to the development of nuclear powered plants. Oyster Creek Power  Station was supposed to provide cheap electricity for the area with free power for the local residents. 
 

Turns out that the power was good for a number of decades, no residents got free power and now the plant has closed down and will be there for another 50 years at least while the authorities implement the plan for the removal of all materials. 
 

I’m in no position to say if it was a good idea or not, but we have to deal with it now and in the next generation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

And Pano's point is that you were misled exactly as the article intended

 

?????

Please explain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

And Pano's point is that you were misled exactly as the article intended

 

I can’t imagine being misled by a media company

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

?????

Please explain

It is quite simple, the WSJ saying "Berlin climate strategy is failing" is disingenuous as they are doing better than many countries despite the phasing out of nuclear. I say hat off to Germany for cutting down emissions while getting rid of nuclear power. As I said above I think that it was too brutal but their climate strategy is certainly not failing.

The wall street journal should stick to stock exchanges and let scientists and engineers tackle the climate crisis!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Without climate alarmists causing moderate people to push back in defense of reasoning and a lack of civil debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sail4beer said:

...Without climate alarmists causing moderate people to push back in defense of reasoning and a lack of civil debate.

Who are these moderate people and where is this civil debate you speak of?????????? Inquiring minds and all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

 

The wall street journal should stick to stock exchanges and let scientists and engineers tackle the climate crisis!

Unfortunately as the mainstream news company most beholden to massive corporations and their IR/PR folks, WSJ cannot help itself but mislead the fuck out of people to be sure that XOM shares continues to rise.  It's not like the so-called 'liberal media' like the Times or Post isn't firmly in corporate america's pocket, but WSJ is way more obvious about it.  As we see above, the openness doesn't make people any less gullible.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Again, that's what you intended to say. You said it led to a massive increase in coal. It didn't. Refer to the graph I shared or go find the source figures.

I read the article too fastyacht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Unfortunately as the mainstream news company most beholden to massive corporations and their IR/PR folks, WSJ cannot help itself but mislead the fuck out of people to be sure that XOM shares continues to rise.  It's not like the so-called 'liberal media' like the Times or Post isn't firmly in corporate america's pocket, but WSJ is way more obvious about it.  As we see above, the openness doesn't make people any less gullible.

Actually the WSJ on the news side is reasonably factual - as it has to be since "their people" use the news to make or lose actual money.  You just don't play political games when real money is involved! 

It is on the editorial side that Murdoch's influence is fully entrenched and the spin machine works overtime.  That part of the WSJ is truly fish wrap.

(Although you sometimes have to read carefully to determine where the news/editorial split is occurring.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Actually the WSJ on the news side is reasonably factual - as it has to be since "their people" use the news to make or lose actual money.  You just don't play political games when real money is involved! 

It is on the editorial side that Murdoch's influence is fully entrenched and the spin machine works overtime.  That part of the WSJ is truly fish wrap.

(Although you sometimes have to read carefully to determine where the news/editorial split is occurring.)

Didn't mention politics at all.  I'm talking about pubcos and their ir/pr machines.

  Almost every story WSJ rusn finds some way to stick in some bullshit intended to make some pubco change price.  It's not about Murdoch or politics - it's about the people who write the stories having lifelong relationships with some of the the shadiest people in any industry. That's what IR/PR means.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You crazy.  Almost every story they run finds some way to stick in some bullshit intended to make some pubco change price.  It's not about Murdoch or politics - it's about the people who write the stories having lifelong relationships with some of the the shadiest people in any industry. That's what IR/PR means.

 

That's what I was trying to say in my last sentence.  Let me say it this way:   Almost every story they run finds some way to stick in some bullshit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Who are these moderate people and where is this civil debate you speak of?????????? Inquiring minds and all. 

They are the ones that don’t protest en masse and are willing to talk about the issues without using Google to make every point that they didn’t know previously. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

That's what I was trying to say in my last sentence.  Let me say it this way:   Almost every story they run finds some way to stick in some bullshit

Ah, so you mean the news/editorial split is in each article, not between distinct opinion and news articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Who are these moderate people and where is this civil debate you speak of?????????? Inquiring minds and all. 

They are the ones that don’t protest en masse (NOTTE MY PRESSIDENTE!!!)and are willing to talk about the issues without using Google to make every point that they didn’t know previously. (and no howe to weeve vulgaritey(s) into consiese, cohessieve, pureswassive aurgumentte of meanengfulle usse.)

I hoppe thisse helpes..........           :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t judge people by the color of their skin or the color of their cap. 
 

I do judge people on what they espouse and how hard they espouse it. I’m not smart enough to try to educate adults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blunted said:

When growing up my parents gave me the Kids Whole Earth Catalog. It was written by Stewart Brand. He advocated for "saving the earth" and was well out in front of what came to be pretty much all 20C environmental policies and whatnot. He's been focusing on these issues for well over 60 years. I find this Ted Talk by him to be rather enlightening.

Just watch it, it's all of 16 minutes. sober, well reasoned and I would argue, he is an authoritative figure in the world of climate change and more specifically what to do about it in a changing world.

I'm a fan of Stewart Brand, and agree that he is solid source of information.

His TED Talk was delivered about 14 years ago in February 2006, so what has changed since then? From the top of my head:

  • World population peaks are going to be higher than the 8 or 9 billion he shared, Brand used the 2004 UN report. The UN revised that upwards in 2014 to 10.9 billion.
  • Solar power generation tech has radically improved, as has storage. (Everyone predicted it would improve, but nobody predicted it would improve as much or become as cheap). Brand said that the storage problem hadn't been solved yet. 14 years later, we are now considerably further ahead. Read this.) There have been dramatic changes over the last two years or so.
  • Nuclear power is no longer viewed as the only solution. (The article I shared about Germany's renewable gives a succinct summary of how it will work for Germany without Nuclear or Coal. Here it is again.)

Many of the other predictions Brand made have proved to be correct. 

He's now 81, sharp as a tack and still active. Here's an interview in 2018. (I like that he gets passionate about misinformation, particularly exaggerations.)