Because Global Warming

[GH2001]

WHERE are you getting this from the video I posted? It's not there. I don't know what this guy may have said in other forums, but it's simply not in the video. AND EVEN IF HE DID say that in other forums, that doesn't make ANYTHING he said in this video untrue or REQUIRE that the technology he is describing here to completely and immediately REPLACE your precious coal and oil.
I don't know or care. Not relevant at all.
Well, first of all, we scientists know it to be scientific fact. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean people who actually understand this shit aren't. They're working toward a solution to the problem because the problem is settled science. Secondly, your first sentence is bitching about him working for a research university and getting grants to do so, and then every subsequent statement is bitching that WE JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET. Do you fail to see the irony in that?

And what exactly do you take issue with? 22 million new jobs? Typewriter manufacturers close shop causing people to lose their jobs, while PC manufacturers open up hiring double. Same with coal and clean energy.

The efficiency? "A gasoline car, only 17-20% of the energy in the gasoline goes to move the car, the rest is waste heat. An electric car, of the electricity that goes to the car stored in batteries, 80-86% goes to move the car." Explain to me why that's bad? Why is it bad to move forward with technology and do things better when we have the technology to do so? Even if there was only a 1% chance it could allow us to breathe cleaner air and possibly stove off world destruction if even for an extra minute, why would that be bad? Except it's not a 1% chance, we scientifically know this to be true like we know the Earth revolves around the sun.

You're sitting here saying you're open to alternate renewable energy to compete in the open market while simultaneously bashing this guy for simply talking about introducing it to the open market. Explaining why it is better than the energy we currently rely on. For some reason that PISSES some of you off and you PREFER energy that is going to be more expensive, less efficient, is guaranteed to eventually run out, and we know as scientific fact to be causing irreparable damage to the planet. WHY?

Actually watched very little of the video.

Did some research on the guy. Looked at his page. His Stanford profile. And his dept site. Just relaying the message is all. He wants ONLY green options. I just don't agree.

Yes I'm open to alternative energy. In fact I have the stupid looking light bulbs all over my house. Some LEDs too. There was even a Prius in my driveway for a short time. No issue with them. But I just don't agree that the science is 100% without a doubt certain. I like alternatives. But I also like free market and letting people choose what they want.

This is just a case where we will agree to disagree man. Nothing personal.

[GH2001]

Trivia Question: How much more tax money was wasted in the Bridge to Nowhere vs Obama's green company prop ups that quickly folded?

I don't know the answer but at least the bridge still exists. The billions poured into at least some of those taxpayer propped up companies are in green pockets. Probably on a private island right now. But, not much outrage re: this.

Solyndra failed to remain afloat for sever reasons.

Two of them being:

It was not as well thought out and concrete as the people who marketed it thought it was. They thought more of it than the market did. Logistical nightmare.

Supply and demand just didn't match. It was forced on the public and propped up by a huge handout. But wasn't viable...yet.

[WiregrassTiger]

Actually watched very little of the video.

Did some research on the guy. Looked at his page. His Stanford profile. And his dept site. Just relaying the message is all. He wants ONLY green options. I just don't agree.

Yes I'm open to alternative energy. In fact I have the stupid looking light bulbs all over my house. Some LEDs too. There was even a Prius in my driveway for a short time. No issue with them. But I just don't agree that the science is 100% without a doubt certain. I like alternatives. But I also like free market and letting people choose what they want.

This is just a case where we will agree to disagree man. Nothing personal.

I am tying to be green too. I mostly shit in a creek behind my house to save on the water that would just go down the drain.

[WiregrassTiger]

Solyndra failed to remain afloat for sever reasons.

Two of them being:

It was not as well thought out and concrete as the people who marketed it thought it was. They thought more of it than the market did. Logistical nightmare.

Supply and demand just didn't match. It was forced on the public and propped up by a huge handout. But wasn't viable...yet.

It is the biggest example and there are others. It's not the fact that they are green that turns me against trying this. It's the key word that you used. Viable.

These gov't types typically aren't business people and have little idea where to invest. So, it's politics that decides where the green money is invested. That's the way that it works with everything but it's an even bigger waste when it comes to these Green companies because it's so new. They are just pissing away money and there is little to show for it.

I'm all for moving away from coal. But, let the market find a (get ready for it....) viable option.

The heavy handed gov't approach will only worsen our economy.

[AUChizad]

PC manufacturers were doing it because a free market was demanding it and without being propped up by gubment.

I take no issue with alternative power sources getting some helping hands here and there but it has to be in the ballpark of being economically competitive.

Same.

And the video I posted doesn't contradict that at all. Being vehemently opposed to the video IS contradictory.

[AUChizad]

PC manufacturers were doing it because a free market was demanding it and without being propped up by gubment.

I take no issue with alternative power sources getting some helping hands here and there but it has to be in the ballpark of being economically competitive.

Also...

The free market demand for PCs didn't materialize out of nowhere. They had to be developed first. People had to understand why there was a need. And if you recall, they were extremely expensive early on in the process.

In this analogy, people in this thread are bitching at a Steve Wozniak explaining how the PC could revolutionize the world and why it's a better and more efficient product, and could eventually even be made for cheaper. While you guys shout "Get yur elistist know-it-all hands off my damn typewriters! I bet that Wozniak feller wants to GET RID of typewriters all together! What about the typewriter manufacturing jobs, Mr. Smarty-pants, have you thought of that? I bet he even talked to Hanoi Jane once!"

[WiregrassTiger]

While you guys shout "Get yur elistist know-it-all hands off my damn typewriters! I bet that Wozniak feller wants to GET RID of typewriters all together! What about the typewriter manufacturing jobs, Mr. Smarty-pants, have you thought of that? I bet he even talked to Hanoi Jane once!"

I don't think any of us see you in that light. At least I don't.

I just see you as a dumbass who thinks that he's smart.

[AUChizad]

I don't think any of us see you in that light. At least I don't.

I just see you as a dumbass who thinks that he's smart.

I'm not Steve Wozniak, dumbass who thinks he's smart.

[WiregrassTiger]

I'm not Steve Wozniak, dumbass who thinks he's smart.

There is no need for name calling.

[Kaos]

Well, first of all, scientists know it to be scientific fact. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean people who actually understand this shit aren't. They're working toward a solution to the problem because the problem is settled in science.

No. They don't know shit.  They are speculating based on a miniscule sample that is not statistically relevant.  It's like the emperor's clothes.  People are afraid to speak the truth because shouters like you label them as "ignorant" or worse simply because they refuse to blindly accept the plate of bullshit you've willingly swallowed. 

The "problem" they are "solving" simply does not exist.  But the gullible public is too self-centered to see beyond their own insignificant lifespan. 

[AUChizad]

No. They don't know shit.  They are speculating based on a miniscule sample that is not statistically relevant.  It's like the emperor's clothes.  People are afraid to speak the truth because shouters like you label them as "ignorant" or worse simply because they refuse to blindly accept the plate of bullshit you've willingly swallowed. 

The "problem" they are "solving" simply does not exist.  But the gullible public is too self-centered to see beyond their own insignificant lifespan.

Says you. Not almost any actual climate scientist. Then again, you think Trump is the most qualified presidential candidate specifically BECAUSE he's so unqualified, has no experience, and doesn't know shit about shit.

You entire argument is that no one can possibly know, but YOU are 100% certain because you know more than any one who studies these things for a living.

Your hubris is astounding.

[GH2001]

Also...

The free market demand for PCs didn't materialize out of nowhere. They had to be developed first. People had to understand why there was a need. And if you recall, they were extremely expensive early on in the process.

In this analogy, people in this thread are bitching at a Steve Wozniak explaining how the PC could revolutionize the world and why it's a better and more efficient product, and could eventually even be made for cheaper. While you guys shout "Get yur elistist know-it-all hands off my damn typewriters! I bet that Wozniak feller wants to GET RID of typewriters all together! What about the typewriter manufacturing jobs, Mr. Smarty-pants, have you thought of that? I bet he even talked to Hanoi Jane once!"

Honestly, I think it's a bad comparison.

Like sani said, the market dictated it. Once people saw the pc/apple II/mac whatever, it took off. It wasn't forced on them by purposely shutting down the competing tools. The competing tools went out of business because the market went that way. The guy you posted the video about wants to replace existing things preemptively and by force with his idea, not compete. Don't care what the video says. His dossier says this is so.

Compete means all options on the table and let the better man win. That's what happened with pc and typewriters. That's what happens with anything else.

[Saniflush]

Honestly, I think it's a bad comparison.

Like sani said, the market dictated it. Once people saw the pc/apple II/mac whatever, it took off. It wasn't forced on them by purposely shutting down the competing tools. The competing tools went out of business because the market went that way. The guy you posted the video about wants to replace existing things preemptively and by force with his idea, not compete. Don't care what the video says. His dossier says this is so.

Compete means all options on the table and let the better man win. That's what happened with pc and typewriters. That's what happens with anything else.

Yea.....and that guy ain't no Woz!

[Snaggletiger]

Honestly, I think it's a bad comparison.

Like sani said, the market dictated it. Once people saw the pc/apple II/mac whatever, it took off. It wasn't forced on them by purposely shutting down the competing tools. The competing tools went out of business because the market went that way. The guy you posted the video about wants to replace existing things preemptively and by force with his idea, not compete. Don't care what the video says. His dossier says this is so.

Compete means all options on the table and let the better man win. That's what happened with pc and typewriters. That's what happens with anything else.

Admit it.  You've been looking for the right moment to throw a "dossier" into the conversation for quite a while now, haven't you?

[AUChizad]

I think it's a bad comparison. Like sani said, the market dictated it. Once people saw the pc/apple II/mac whatever, it took off. It wasn't forced on them by purposely shutting down the competing tools. The competing tools went out of business because the market went that way. The guy you posted the video out wants to replace existing things with his idea, not compete. Compete means all options on the table and let the better man win. That's what happened with pc and typewriters.

Straw man. Ad-Hominem. Nothing in the video says he wants to shut down coal mines tomorrow. I didn't post the video saying "HEY, ME AND THIS GUY AGREE ON EVERYTHING HE'S EVER SAID IN HIS LIFE!" I posted it to demonstrate where we COULD be headed if people would lift their dragging knuckles.

And I made it expressly clear two dozen times that I don't. Everyone keeps arguing with me that the government shouldn't step in and shut down coal miners TODAY leaving us only with technology that hasn't been fully, universally adapted, when I have said the opposite over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

You don't get to smugly disagree with me on something I 100% agree with you on.

EVEN IF I humor your straw man argument: You think Wozniak didn't want to put typewriters out of business? Or that Shawn Fanning didn't want to run the old model record industry out of business?

[GH2001]

Yea.....and that guy ain't no Woz!

Robert M Carter is a real scientists. Not a for profit one. And the guy has debunked every single thing that has ever came out of Jim Cantore's weather "hack of a" channel's filthy sewer. Check out his articles. Very good and objective.

[GH2001]

Admit it.  You've been looking for the right moment to throw a "dossier" into the conversation for quite a while now, haven't you?

Apocalypse Now is a fine movie. I celebrate Sheen's entire catalog of cool movie terms.

[Saniflush]

You think Wozniak didn't want to put typewriters out of business? Or that Shawn Fanning didn't want to run the old model record industry out of business?

Sure they did, but they had to sack up and do it by building a better mouse trap.  They didn't have it legislated to them though.

[Kaos]

Says you. Not almost any actual climate scientist. Then again, you think Trump is the most qualified presidential candidate specifically BECAUSE he's so unqualified, has no experience, and doesn't know shit about shit.

You entire argument is that no one can possibly know, but YOU are 100% certain because you know more than any one who studies these things for a living.

Your hubris is astounding.

That's what she said. 

If recognizing that there were similar climatological patterns occurring long before human consumption raised CO2 levels by less than one tenth of one percent makes me all hubrissy then so be it.  I'm not the one posting biased "studies" performed by "scientists" and declaring them to be absolute proven fact. 

Do you not understand how research and the scientific method works?  You come up with a theory, work backward to prove you were right in the first place, ignore anything that doesn't fit, tell your friends who do the same thing to back you up so they don't look stupid. 

In most cases a thorough impartial review will debunk your stupid shit.  But in this case it wasn't allowed to happen.  Blithering hypocritical fools like al gore seized the bogus theory and ran with it.  It became a thing. 

In typical liberal fashion dissent was not allowed. If you didn't blindly accept their flawed premise they used hate speech to marginalize you.  Much as you've done here.  Think global hotbox isn't legit? You're stupid. You're ignorant. You're uneducated. You're not progressive. You're archaic. Those with differing opinions or theories (equally valid I might add) are ostracized.  And the lie -- like the emperors clothes -- grows and perpetuates.

"Science" and it's facts is usually about 30/70 right to wrong over history. 

[GH2001]

Straw man. Ad-Hominem. Nothing in the video says he wants to shut down coal mines tomorrow. I didn't post the video saying "HEY, ME AND THIS GUY AGREE ON EVERYTHING HE'S EVER SAID IN HIS LIFE!" I posted it to demonstrate where we COULD be headed if people would lift their dragging knuckles.

And I made it expressly clear two dozen times that I don't. Everyone keeps arguing with me that the government shouldn't step in and shut down coal miners TODAY leaving us only with technology that hasn't been fully, universally adapted, when I have said the opposite over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

You don't get to smugly disagree with me on something I 100% agree with you on.

EVEN IF I humor your straw man argument: You think Wozniak didn't want to put typewriters out of business? Or that Shawn Fanning didn't want to run the old model record industry out of business?

Hey now. I'm not being smugly. That wasn't very nice.

srs though - YOU may not want to shut them down. But this guy does. And everyone on the dem side does (with the exception of Joe Manchin). When they say go "totally to renewable energy" that's what that means. Sure woz and jobs and gates wanted typewriters to be gone. But they did it by making people need and want their product more. The green stuff being pushed is by force (not by you but these other people) and it's very political. Ie - solyndra. Look up Eco tyranny. Its good stuff.