By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Climate Change, No peer reviewed evidence to prove it isn't happening

TheRealMafoo on 18 August 2009
megaman79 said:
If you look at all the facts and form your own opinion why are all the points you make in support of issues that are identical to the talking points of republicans and the conservative side of politics?

Apparently you can't form your own opinion on these issues either.
  • I am pro choice
  • I am for legalizing drugs
  • I am for all rights to be given equal (so gay men and woman have the same liberties as all Americans)
  • I don’t believe in god
  • I am against the wars going on right now, and was against them when Bush was in office
  • I think George Bush Jr. is the second worst president in American history
  • I am against policing the world

How do these views make me a conservative? I don’t agree with you on manmade climate change, because the facts don’t support your argument, not because of any political party.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 18 August 2009
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
superchunk said:

4. The creation of new technology (i.e. what would help us leave fossil fuels) costs money in R&D, physical change, regardless if we do it now or in 50 years, it will still cost money.

So you’re telling me, that if I tried to make a handheld device that would listen to the radio, and last 24 hours on a single battery charge, it would not cost much more to make that device today, as it would have in 1959?

Today, to make that would cost fewer than 100 dollars. To make that device in 1959, it would take years of time and billions of dollars in technology advancements to get there.

Solving a technology problem long before it’s a problem is vastly more expensive.

I think his point was that it only costs you less now because someone made it in the past, which is true, if it were a new technology, you would have to file patents and do lots of research, as its not, you avoid much of the expense, also, if the radio did not already exist, why would companies try and find cheaper ways of making them or more advanced types of radios?

You’re missing the point. The point is, the reason it’s cheap, is the advancement in technology that happened to just be there, that has nothing directly related to radio (battery technology, advancements in electronics, user control technology, etc).

What we know in 50 years will be vastly superior to what we know today. Solving this problem then, will cost less. In 50 years, they can say the same thing. That 100 years from now will cost vastly less than in 50 years.

I think it’s far more important to understand if it’s even a problem, before you radically change the way the world functions.

Why is it too much to ask, that we understand a problem before we decide how to solve it?



SciFiBoy on 18 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
superchunk said:

4. The creation of new technology (i.e. what would help us leave fossil fuels) costs money in R&D, physical change, regardless if we do it now or in 50 years, it will still cost money.

So you’re telling me, that if I tried to make a handheld device that would listen to the radio, and last 24 hours on a single battery charge, it would not cost much more to make that device today, as it would have in 1959?

Today, to make that would cost fewer than 100 dollars. To make that device in 1959, it would take years of time and billions of dollars in technology advancements to get there.

Solving a technology problem long before it’s a problem is vastly more expensive.

I think his point was that it only costs you less now because someone made it in the past, which is true, if it were a new technology, you would have to file patents and do lots of research, as its not, you avoid much of the expense, also, if the radio did not already exist, why would companies try and find cheaper ways of making them or more advanced types of radios?

You’re missing the point. The point is, the reason it’s cheap, is the advancement in technology that happened to just be there, that has nothing directly related to radio (battery technology, advancements in electronics, user control technology, etc).

What we know in 50 years will be vastly superior to what we know today. Solving this problem then, will cost less. In 50 years, they can say the same thing. That 100 years from now will cost vastly less than in 50 years.

I think it’s far more important to understand if it’s even a problem, before you radically change the way the world functions.

Why is it too much to ask, that we understand a problem before we decide how to solve it?

well, as i understand it, we know that fossil fuels will, at some point, run out?

if so, then the sooner we take action to replace them, the more prepared we are when they do run out?

sure, it may cost more, but, isnt it worth the extra cost to be sure that we have an alternative already in place when the fossil fuels do run out, not to mention that having this alternative in place now, means we use less fossil fuels now, which means they will last longer. 



TheRealMafoo on 18 August 2009
SciFiBoy said:

well, as i understand it, we know that fossil fuels will, at some point, run out?

if so, then the sooner we take action to replace them, the more prepared we are when they do run out?

sure, it may cost more, but, isnt it worth the extra cost to be sure that we have an alternative already in place when the fossil fuels do run out, not to mention that having this alternative in place now, means we use less fossil fuels now, which means they will last longer. 

You mean like the massive tanks of Hydrogen the US stored last century, so we would have enough, only for advancements in technology to make it all pointless? Millions of dollars wasted, in an attempted to predict the future.

Technology moves so fast, that I am 100% confident, that before we run out of fossil fuels, something will come along that makes using it pointless.



SciFiBoy on 18 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:

well, as i understand it, we know that fossil fuels will, at some point, run out?

if so, then the sooner we take action to replace them, the more prepared we are when they do run out?

sure, it may cost more, but, isnt it worth the extra cost to be sure that we have an alternative already in place when the fossil fuels do run out, not to mention that having this alternative in place now, means we use less fossil fuels now, which means they will last longer. 

You mean like the massive tanks of Hydrogen the US stored last century, so we would have enough, only for advancements in technology to make it all pointless? Millions of dollars wasted, in an attempted to predict the future.

Technology moves so fast, that I am 100% confident, that before we run out of fossil fuels, something will come along that makes using it pointless.

i wish i shared your confidence in that, but i dont, so i think we should pursue alternatives in case something doesnt come along.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 18 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:

well, as i understand it, we know that fossil fuels will, at some point, run out?

if so, then the sooner we take action to replace them, the more prepared we are when they do run out?

sure, it may cost more, but, isnt it worth the extra cost to be sure that we have an alternative already in place when the fossil fuels do run out, not to mention that having this alternative in place now, means we use less fossil fuels now, which means they will last longer. 

You mean like the massive tanks of Hydrogen the US stored last century, so we would have enough, only for advancements in technology to make it all pointless? Millions of dollars wasted, in an attempted to predict the future.

Technology moves so fast, that I am 100% confident, that before we run out of fossil fuels, something will come along that makes using it pointless.

Its called nuclear power =P

We are really looking for something that can replace that down the road - we should have started transitioning off of hydrocarbons to nuclear back in the 70s in truth.

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
megaman79 on 18 August 2009
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:

well, as i understand it, we know that fossil fuels will, at some point, run out?

if so, then the sooner we take action to replace them, the more prepared we are when they do run out?

sure, it may cost more, but, isnt it worth the extra cost to be sure that we have an alternative already in place when the fossil fuels do run out, not to mention that having this alternative in place now, means we use less fossil fuels now, which means they will last longer.

You mean like the massive tanks of Hydrogen the US stored last century, so we would have enough, only for advancements in technology to make it all pointless? Millions of dollars wasted, in an attempted to predict the future.

Technology moves so fast, that I am 100% confident, that before we run out of fossil fuels, something will come along that makes using it pointless.

Its called nuclear power =P

We are really looking for something that can replace that down the road - we should have started transitioning off of hydrocarbons to nuclear back in the 70s in truth.

 

Why should we have started in the 70's? Tell me why please because i know your fully aware of how long it takes to build the things.

When nuclear power comes up i know its somebody who really has no feasable understanding of the logistics involved in that many plants in that many countries. And lets not talk about uranium deposits either.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

HappySqurriel on 18 August 2009
megaman79 said:
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:

well, as i understand it, we know that fossil fuels will, at some point, run out?

if so, then the sooner we take action to replace them, the more prepared we are when they do run out?

sure, it may cost more, but, isnt it worth the extra cost to be sure that we have an alternative already in place when the fossil fuels do run out, not to mention that having this alternative in place now, means we use less fossil fuels now, which means they will last longer.

You mean like the massive tanks of Hydrogen the US stored last century, so we would have enough, only for advancements in technology to make it all pointless? Millions of dollars wasted, in an attempted to predict the future.

Technology moves so fast, that I am 100% confident, that before we run out of fossil fuels, something will come along that makes using it pointless.

Its called nuclear power =P

We are really looking for something that can replace that down the road - we should have started transitioning off of hydrocarbons to nuclear back in the 70s in truth.

 

Why should we have started in the 70's? Tell me why please because i know your fully aware of how long it takes to build the things.

When nuclear power comes up i know its somebody who really has no feasable understanding of the logistics involved in that many plants in that many countries. And lets not talk about uranium deposits either.

Doesn't the fact that there are decades worth of infastructure that needs to be built to generate today's energy consumption through nuclear energy support his argument that it should have started decades ago?



mrstickball on 18 August 2009

I am going to lock this thread.

It's obvious that Megaman wants to argue without reason, and not learn anything from the discussion unless it fits entirely within his worldview.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.