or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Chu: Americans Like Teenagers on Energy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chu: Americans Like Teenagers on Energy

post #1 of 50
Thread Starter 
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...mes-to-energy/

I've always known Chu was a radical on energy policy, but this one takes it to another level.

Quote:
The American publicjust like your teenage kids, arent acting in a way that they should act, Dr. Chu said. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.

Now, an update at the end of the article says he wasn't comparing the public to teenagers, but I don't see how one could conclude he was saying otherwise. This man is the epitomy of statist elitism. Rather than focus on finding ways to provide more energy and work towards oil independence, Chu has chosen to lecture the American public. Like many Obama associates, Chu believes he and the government simply know better. They know how to run our lives better than we do. They know how to spend our money better than we do. They know how to "conserve" energy better than we do. If only we'd stop acting like children, they could execute their plans. Of course, we're all supposed to ignore their blatant hypocrisy, particularly on energy use.

Putting hypocrisy aside, Chu is simply wrong. People want to and do conserve energy. But they need cost effective ways to do so. Asking them to radically alter their lives is not going to work, and conservation in only part of the solution. A sane energy secretary would promote conservation and work towards providing more energy for the United States in the future. He would explore green initiatives, but he would realize that we cannot stop using fossil fuels for a long time...thereby requiring greater supply in the present. And he certainly wouldn't condescend to the American public.

Of course, this is Chu we're talking about.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 50
Maybe when 45% of the American Public actually believe that death panels are part of Obama's health plan, the American public needs to be lectured sometimes. Maybe instead of immediately looking to get offended, you actually look at the policies and provide an intelligent critique.

Of course, this is SDW we're talking about.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #3 of 50
Wasn't there some very high percentage of Americans who believe Obama is the anti-christ?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #4 of 50
Two replies an already off topic.


I never understood why Chu was chosen. Doesn't seem to be the right person to head up the Energy Department. I guess Obama sees something I don't.
post #5 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Maybe when 45% of the American Public actually believe that death panels are part of Obama's health plan, the American public needs to be lectured sometimes. Maybe instead of immediately looking to get offended, you actually look at the policies and provide an intelligent critique.

Of course, this is SDW we're talking about.

1. Death panels, though I don't like that term, would be inevitable in a system that had rationed care.

2. The American never needs to be lectured by the government. Never.

3. I have looked at the policies. They are utterly ridiculous and wrongheaded. We're doing nothing about energy independence. We're doing nothing about nuclear power. We're doing nothing about building more oil refineries for the short term. We're doing nothing about expanding domestic oil exploration. We're doing nothing about converting to natural gas power. What we are doing is telling people they can save the planet by not turning on air conditioning in 100 degree weather, installing fucking fluorescent light bulbs and using less toilet paper. Then we're telling them they are adolescent fools and that only Mr. Government can help.

Yes, look at the policies indeed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Death panels, though I don't like that term, would be inevitable in a system that had rationed care.

Opinion.

Quote:
2. The American never needs to be lectured by the government. Never.

Unless you're fighting the war on terror.

3. I have looked at the policies. They are utterly ridiculous and wrongheaded. We're doing nothing about energy independence. We're doing nothing about nuclear power. We're doing nothing about building more oil refineries for the short term. We're doing nothing about expanding domestic oil exploration. We're doing nothing about converting to natural gas power. What we are doing is telling people they can save the planet by not turning on air conditioning in 100 degree weather, installing fucking fluorescent light bulbs and using less toilet paper. Then we're telling them they are adolescent fools and that only Mr. Government can help.

Yes, look at the policies indeed.[/QUOTE]

Looks like the same policy as the last 16 years. Of course, Republicans didn't seem too fucking concerned about it then. Glad to see that they've come around to the left's side of things.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #7 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Opinion.



Unless you're fighting the war on terror.

3. I have looked at the policies. They are utterly ridiculous and wrongheaded. We're doing nothing about energy independence. We're doing nothing about nuclear power. We're doing nothing about building more oil refineries for the short term. We're doing nothing about expanding domestic oil exploration. We're doing nothing about converting to natural gas power. What we are doing is telling people they can save the planet by not turning on air conditioning in 100 degree weather, installing fucking fluorescent light bulbs and using less toilet paper. Then we're telling them they are adolescent fools and that only Mr. Government can help.

Yes, look at the policies indeed.

Looks like the same policy as the last 16 years. Of course, Republicans didn't seem too fucking concerned about it then. Glad to see that they've come around to the left's side of things.[/QUOTE]

It's not about "good" vs. "bad" policies. It's about appropriate policies and strategy for the time. 16 years ago, we had enough refining capacity. Gas was $1.15 a gallon. Now, the Republicans certainly didn't do enough (or much of anything) about oil independence, natural gas, etc. But either did the Democrats. Let's not pretend the Democratic party didn't exist before 2006, OK?

That said, I'm interested in the here and now...in terms of what we can start doing now to ensure abundant supply, cleaner energy and energy independence. What's going on now is unacceptable, particularly given the current environment (no pun intended) politically and in terms of supply/demand.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 50
The fact that we cannot get policies in place that help us to implement more nuclear power plants and that we are tearing down dams and existing power plants while not doing much to replace that energy is fairly damning in and of itself. Both sides of the aisle should be ashamed of themselves for letting it get to where it is today.

The auto industry obviously "fiddled while Rome burned" with millions of dollars put into studies that found that people would rather have more cup holders than better fuel economy. However, that was their own mistake and the government should never have let the market deal with that issue by itself when people stopped buying the gas guzzlers that they had to offer and they had not also made better, more economical cars as well in an obviously forward looking fashion. Ford is doing well in playing catch-up but they should have been much further ahead of where they are now. I wish them all the best and hope that they continue to push the envelope and actually innovate instead of react to other companies like Toyota and Honda.

There is nothing wrong with putting fluorescent lights in your home and easing up on the A/C, but that cannot be the entire answer. There needs to be work done on the other side of the equation as well. Wind power is good, as is solar power, and other forms of "renewable energy", but they all rely on things that cannot be controlled or relied upon all the time. If we stop using coal energy what will replace that? For now Nuclear power seems to be the best alternative. Until the next innovation, why would we not use that?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #9 of 50
I'm completely on board with nuclear power. Pebble-bed reactors are safe, efficient, and far superior to the alternatives. We should be rapidly replacing our existing fossil fuel burning plants with those. Though, clean coal does have its merits as well. Regardless, we're not pursuing either of those options seriously and that's a crime.

Do yourself a favor and read Physics for Future Presidents by Berkeley Professor Richard Muller. It should frankly be required reading for current presidents as well.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm completely on board with nuclear power. Pebble-bed reactors are safe, efficient, and far superior to the alternatives. We should be rapidly replacing our existing fossil fuel burning plants with those. Though, clean coal does have its merits as well. Regardless, we're not pursuing either of those options seriously and that's a crime.

Do yourself a favor and read Physics for Future Presidents by Berkeley Professor Richard Muller. It should frankly be required reading for current presidents as well.

We are in complete agreement. I think I even had a post on here noting that Obama could have had a jobs, infrastructure and stimulus program that likely almost every Republican would have voted yes on if we were spending $787 billion to build nuclear power plants and to replace dirtier alternatives.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We are in complete agreement. I think I even had a post on here noting that Obama could have had a jobs, infrastructure and stimulus program that likely almost every Republican would have voted yes on if we were spending $787 billion to build nuclear power plants and to replace dirtier alternatives.

The notion that Republicans will support Obama on ANYTHING is pretty hilarious. "You" may. But your party certainly will not.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #12 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

The notion that Republicans will support Obama on ANYTHING is pretty hilarious. "You" may. But your party certainly will not.

I remember several attempts to divorce the "shovel-ready" projects from the rest of the stimulus because all or nearly all Republicans supported them. I also remember several statements from Republican congressional leadership stating that they supported exactly that as well. The problem of course is that of the stimulus, the amount related to infrastructure improvements is anemic.

Cheney himself was pushing broad support for nuclear. It hasn't happened because the left is full of utopians who do not believe in trade offs. If the left in this country could address trade-offs then opposition, no matter the source could easily be marginalized. Want universal health care? Pay for it with the savings from 1000 nuclear reactors saving us from imported oil while allowing us to also drill off-shore. (You know, what those evil socialist countries like Denmark, France and Canada do.)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

The notion that Republicans will support Obama on ANYTHING is pretty hilarious. "You" may. But your party certainly will not.

Actually, they have been trying to get those things for years (admittedly not hard enough), so I would be surprised if they did fight over more than how the projects should be implemented. Not whether they should be...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #14 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Maybe when 45% of the American Public actually believe that death panels are part of Obama's health plan, the American public needs to be lectured sometimes. Maybe instead of immediately looking to get offended, you actually look at the policies and provide an intelligent critique.

Of course, this is SDW we're talking about.

ROFLMAO!!!! Brilliant!!!
post #15 of 50
Steve Chu was talking about lecturing to the american youth about environment education, which sounds like a damn good plan if you ask me. The american culture has very little education about the need to adopt an environment-friendly lifestyle. Most of us see those things as the province of dumb celebs and hippie treehuggers. I live in a prominent city in Alabama. Even though it is prominent, it seems sometimes that every car is a huge pickup truck spilling black smoke. My neighbor has this in this garage: two pickup trucks, a gas lawnmower, a gas edge trimmer, a gas scooter for his kid, a gas pressure washer, a gas power generator, and an air compressor, LOL! And I don't think he is an extreme example. Get the picture?

The american public NEEDS to be lectured. That much is clear. That doesn't mean you must comply with what they say so there is no need for the OP to throw a hissy fit. And by the way the government lectures the citizens all the time, it is called a speech. Reagan did it all the time during the cold war. The only difference is this is way way more important.

Steve Chu was chosen to this post because he offered a unique mix of depth of understanding of the climate problem with political savvyness. In the past, DOE chiefs were chosen based purely on politics. Steve is one of the first who actually understands the problem because he is a trained scientist and a pretty damn good one. Is Steve Chu arrogant? Oh hell yes. If you met him in person you would be hating the guy in less than 5 seconds. But... believe it or not... he is also smart and he is correct.

Climate change is a clear and present danger that affects the entire world. The OP and trumptman seem to think about this issue in the national security context, it seems. Well, there is also the context of the repercussions of climate change and suggestions of "clean coal" and "new refineries" have been soundly rejected by all those who understand what is at stake. The best thing you can do is to try to get informed by reading the ICCP report and asking questions about concepts still unclear to you until you get a basic grasp of the issue.
post #16 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Steve Chu was talking about lecturing to the american youth about environment education, which sounds like a damn good plan if you ask me.

Bullshit. Just stop there. He said this:

Quote:
“The American public, just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”



Quote:
The american culture has very little education about the need to adopt an environment-friendly lifestyle. Most of us see those things as the province of dumb celebs and hippie treehuggers.

Unsubstantiated. We're bombarded with Save the Earth messages everywhere we go. People know.

Quote:
I live in a prominent city in Alabama. Even though it is prominent, it seems sometimes that every car is a huge pickup truck spilling black smoke.

I think you mean "progressive," not prominent.

Quote:
My neighbor has this in this garage: two pickup trucks, a gas lawnmower, a gas edge trimmer, a gas scooter for his kid, a gas pressure washer, a gas power generator, and an air compressor, LOL! And I don't think he is an extreme example. Get the picture?

Who cares? Gas power is very efficient. Gas is abundant and fairly inexpensive. What should he do..buy solar powered versions? The problem here is that you honestly believe two things: 1. These things are destroying the planet and 2. If we reduced use of these items, it would make a difference in oil consumption.

Quote:


The american public NEEDS to be lectured. That much is clear. That doesn't mean you must comply with what they say so there is no need for the OP to throw a hissy fit. And by the way the government lectures the citizens all the time, it is called a speech. Reagan did it all the time during the cold war. The only difference is this is way way more important.

No, they don't. And, that's a stupid analogy.

Quote:

Steve Chu was chosen to this post because he offered a unique mix of depth of understanding of the climate problem with political savvyness. In the past, DOE chiefs were chosen based purely on politics. Steve is one of the first who actually understands the problem because he is a trained scientist and a pretty damn good one. Is Steve Chu arrogant? Oh hell yes. If you met him in person you would be hating the guy in less than 5 seconds. But... believe it or not... he is also smart and he is correct.

His job is not to save the environment. His job is ensure safer, cleaner energy for the country and oversee it's facilities in that regard.

Quote:

Climate change is a clear and present danger that affects the entire world. The OP and trumptman seem to think about this issue in the national security context, it seems. Well, there is also the context of the repercussions of climate change and suggestions of "clean coal" and "new refineries" have been soundly rejected by all those who understand what is at stake. The best thing you can do is to try to get informed by reading the ICCP report and asking questions about concepts still unclear to you until you get a basic grasp of the issue.

The OP, me, doesn't believe in global warming (interesting how your side has abandoned this term). Temperatures are falling, not rising. Secondly, your arrogant elitism shows here: "...have been soundlt rejected by all those who understand what is at stake..." That's always the way it is with the greenies/lefities. If their opposition was only smarter and/or more informed, they'd agree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Steve Chu was talking about lecturing to the american youth about environment education, which sounds like a damn good plan if you ask me.

Yes, well this is why we didn't ask you. People who think humans are a virus on the planet that are killing it aren't fit to determine how others should live. You don't get have input when the result you are hoping for is genocide.

Quote:
The american culture has very little education about the need to adopt an environment-friendly lifestyle. Most of us see those things as the province of dumb celebs and hippie treehuggers. I live in a prominent city in Alabama. Even though it is prominent, it seems sometimes that every car is a huge pickup truck spilling black smoke. My neighbor has this in this garage: two pickup trucks, a gas lawnmower, a gas edge trimmer, a gas scooter for his kid, a gas pressure washer, a gas power generator, and an air compressor, LOL! And I don't think he is an extreme example. Get the picture?

I do get the picture. You fail to see that prominent in Alabama wouldn't be a flea's ass in California.

Here is a picture you need to get. California is your claimed promise land and we have industry fleeing due to regulation and the inability to guarantee power for their needs. We are broke with billions of oil sitting off our coast. We are the folks replacing 400 megawatt nuclear power plants with 4 megawatt solar set ups. We are the state where farm land is lying fallow bankrupting the farm owners and unemploying the folks who would help with those crops all due to a minnow.

So your neighbor owns some items you don't approve of but how does that prove he is uneducated in the matter? Is the claim about this merely due to the disagreement? Did you give him a quiz that he failed?

Of course he isn't an extreme example. People who live in single family homes have lawns and tools associated with the care of them. You appear to implicate them without considering how much fuel they actually use and what the alternatives would cost. As an example, how much gas do you honestly think goes through all those power toys in a year? I would bet it isn't even 10 gallons of gas.

The exact type of thinking you have leads to ridiculous results meant to cause discomfort and pain to the human population and a hope that in their misery they will simply fail to reproduce in "hopes" of saving the planet. Be honest about your agenda which is misery, pain and harm all in the name of mythical good intentions. Stop implicating your neighbor and tell enlightened Al Gore to stop jetting around the world while coming home to his monster house and monster house boat. Those actions probably burn more energy in a year than all your neighbors power tools will burn in a lifetime.

Quote:
The american public NEEDS to be lectured. That much is clear. That doesn't mean you must comply with what they say so there is no need for the OP to throw a hissy fit. And by the way the government lectures the citizens all the time, it is called a speech. Reagan did it all the time during the cold war. The only difference is this is way way more important.

There is a large difference between ignorance and indifference. The American public is not ignorant on these matters. Likewise claiming that the "enlightened" parties should educate them is nonsense because those parties are not example of what they claim. They want to change society while driving from lecture to lecture in SUVs left idling so the interior will be cool when they come out. They take private jets from location to location and burn more fuel in them than most small towns will consume in a year in just one trip.

It is blatant hypocrisy and nothing more than moralizing and sermonizing in the name of stripping freedoms and grabbing power.

Quote:
Steve Chu was chosen to this post because he offered a unique mix of depth of understanding of the climate problem with political savvyness. In the past, DOE chiefs were chosen based purely on politics. Steve is one of the first who actually understands the problem because he is a trained scientist and a pretty damn good one. Is Steve Chu arrogant? Oh hell yes. If you met him in person you would be hating the guy in less than 5 seconds. But... believe it or not... he is also smart and he is correct.

So where is the proof that being a scientist leads to good public policy? Please find this for me. Being good in a very select area does not guarantee any sort of expertise on policy that must address complex and generalized systems. Quite the opposite! This is called the endorsement fallacy and is no better than claiming the skinny coke addled actress can recommend the best juicer or exercise machine.

Quote:
Climate change is a clear and present danger that affects the entire world. The OP and trumptman seem to think about this issue in the national security context, it seems. Well, there is also the context of the repercussions of climate change and suggestions of "clean coal" and "new refineries" have been soundly rejected by all those who understand what is at stake. The best thing you can do is to try to get informed by reading the ICCP report and asking questions about concepts still unclear to you until you get a basic grasp of the issue.

The climate change models have not been properly predictive and thus there is no reason to endorse them. There has been no warming for a decade and most delusional climate change advocates are attempting to control humanity based on fear. It is no different than the chieftans of old declaring that some throats must be slit to please the gods and bring about appropriate weather.

I'm not going to pray to Sol nor to Steve Chu and claiming someone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant is the most ignorant claim of all.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 50
Trumptman and SDW. Lets do the following. Go and read the summary of the IPCC report or go here:

http://www.ipccfacts.org/

and lets debate the facts and the evidence, if you dare.

Everything you have written here so far has been based on your own opinions and prejudices and most of the time you don't even bother giving an alternative explanation, even a completely fabricated one. You are merely content in saying "that is ridiculous" and leaving it to that.

Everything I said is based on physics, biology and the synthesis of tons and tons of DATA collected by world-class scientists around the world. The fact that these scientists come from different nationalities only adds to the credibility of the report since they have no particular political agenda (that is, they are not democrats or left-leaning).

If you want to dispute some of this EVIDENCE then by all means lets argue based on EVIDENCE and FACTS. Otherwise you have no argument at all or you have a baseless argument. OK?
post #19 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The climate change models have not been properly predictive and thus there is no reason to endorse them. There has been no warming for a decade and most delusional climate change advocates are attempting to control humanity based on fear. It is no different than the chieftans of old declaring that some throats must be slit to please the gods and bring about appropriate weather.

Quote:
In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”
.
.
.
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
.
.
.
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

It's all done with smoke and mirrors. The primary reference standard used by the IPCC, a political, not scientific body, has undergone "adjustment for homogeneity issues".

There is no comprehensive data available. So sorry, you'll just have to take our word for it!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WI5OWM=&w=MA==
post #20 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Trumptman and SDW. Lets do the following. Go and read the summary of the IPCC report or go here:

http://www.ipccfacts.org/

and lets debate the facts and the evidence, if you dare.

Please don't make me laugh. You didn't just actually claim that government reports forecast with any sort of accuracy did you?

Please show when such reports have been accurate and I'll be happy to discuss their future predictive ability.

Quote:
Everything you have written here so far has been based on your own opinions and prejudices and most of the time you don't even bother giving an alternative explanation, even a completely fabricated one. You are merely content in saying "that is ridiculous" and leaving it to that.

Welcome to the human condition and feel free to realize that you are a member of that group as well. I give plenty of explanations and links when called for but this is about a physicist claiming to be a climatologist and thus lecturing the populace at large about his inability to persuade them since he doesn't happen to have a degree in sociology as well.

The entire premise there is ridiculous. The fact that you would even give it credence at all speaks strongly to your own prejudices and biases. Perhaps I should trust him to make a medical diagnosis as well because hey..... he is a physicist.

Quote:
Everything I said is based on physics, biology and the synthesis of tons and tons of DATA collected by world-class scientists around the world. The fact that these scientists come from different nationalities only adds to the credibility of the report since they have no particular political agenda (that is, they are not democrats or left-leaning).

If you want to dispute some of this EVIDENCE then by all means lets argue based on EVIDENCE and FACTS. Otherwise you have no argument at all or you have a baseless argument. OK?

Actually most of it comes from very little data, very small samples and the fact that multiple scientists do meta-analysis of this same limited data is nothing more than proof of GIGO. Do some reading into peer review and see how little of it is actually done. Additionally realize that almost all this research involves proxies that are believed to represent proof. Until the proxies are proven, the reasoning is circular.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #21 of 50
Thread Starter 
How did he get himself banned? Too bad, it was getting fun. Guess I'll respond so he can get started when he comes back:

Quote:
Trumptman and SDW. Lets do the following. Go and read the summary of the IPCC report or go here:

http://www.ipccfacts.org/

and lets debate the facts and the evidence, if you dare.

Everything you have written here so far has been based on your own opinions and prejudices and most of the time you don't even bother giving an alternative explanation, even a completely fabricated one. You are merely content in saying "that is ridiculous" and leaving it to that.

Everything I said is based on physics, biology and the synthesis of tons and tons of DATA collected by world-class scientists around the world. The fact that these scientists come from different nationalities only adds to the credibility of the report since they have no particular political agenda (that is, they are not democrats or left-leaning).

If you want to dispute some of this EVIDENCE then by all means lets argue based on EVIDENCE and FACTS. Otherwise you have no argument at all or you have a baseless argument. OK?

The IPCC is not the sole and final authority on climate change. As trumpt says, what have they predicted that has proven true? They are a political organization, not the unquestionable authority.

As for alternative explanations: Well..explanations to what, exactly? It's not like we have something that's happened, something that necessitates an explanation. What we have are predictions, none of which have come true or show any signs of coming true. Put simply, temperatures are not increasing. They have actually been declining since 1998.

So what we have here is a theory: Man made CO2 emissions cause a greenhouse effect, which impacts global temperatures. However, there is one problem: The temperature is not increasing. Making matters worse for Global Warming Believers, there are a number of scientists (hundreds if not thousands) that say they don't believe the theory holds true. Additionally, we know from carbon dating that the Earth's temperature has been far, far warmer (and colder) than it is today, varying as much as degrees. In fact, it was much warmer before the industrial revolution ever took place.

Without getting too long winded, there is plenty of data that calls the theory of global warming into question. We've been over it. The best data, though, is the current GAT (Global Average Temperature).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 50
Sorry but the IPCC is not a political organization and Tauron is correct.
post #23 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Sorry but the IPCC is not a political organization

IPCC has politics written all over it.

First: It is the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.

Second, it was "established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)"...two sub-agencies of the United Nations (a political entity).

Third, "The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions."

Governments are political entities. It is their very nature and in their DNA. To say that an entity formed by various politically entities and subject to the control of various other politically entities is not political is the height of naïveté (or dishonesty).

You can't just through "scientific" (which, of course, implies that there are never any political motives and machinations in the scientific community) in there and expect everyone to just swallow it.
post #24 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Sorry but the IPCC is not a political organization and Tauron is correct.

It's not a scientific organization, so if it's not a political organization, what is it?
post #25 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Sorry but the IPCC is not a political organization and Tauron is correct.

Wow, glad we cleared that up. Hope your other 10 posts here were a little better.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #26 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Wasn't there some very high percentage of Americans who believe Obama is the anti-christ?

Waitaminnit... I thought Ronald Wilson Reagan was the Anti-Christ.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #27 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow, glad we cleared that up. Hope your other 10 posts here were a little better.

I thought his 10 posts here were just fine.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 50
Quote:
The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[6][7] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[8]

Mmmkay?
post #29 of 50
Quote:
Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.[77]
On February 1, 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[78] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection and the actual rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection.

Mmmmkay?
post #30 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Mmmkay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Mmmmkay?


Your first quote states the organization does not do its own research. Well done!

Your second quote, regardless of the study it cites, is bunk. Global temperatures have not increased since 1998. That is a fact. Now, how do you explain it?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 50
Isn't it amazing how some folks are right because facts can only come from certain "credible" political organizations. Everyone else is disqualified from facts via ad-homs. Those facts don't count because well because the person that found them out is hateful, or paid by x source, or clearly has y political view.

See even the point about 1998 isn't valid because the IPCC is the only fact finder that checks the right political boxes.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Isn't it amazing how some folks are right because facts can only come from certain "credible" political organizations. Everyone else is disqualified from facts via ad-homs. Those facts don't count because well because the person that found them out is hateful, or paid by x source, or clearly has y political view.

See even the point about 1998 isn't valid because the IPCC is the only fact finder that checks the right political boxes.

Excellent point. How this organization can have credibility at this point is beyond me. Sometimes I honestly wonder if it's partly in the name: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC! What a fantastically official and credible sounding name. And look...it's international! Of course, their predictions have not borne out. Those predictions are now in direct conflict with the hard data we have on global temperature. But no matter. We have the IPCC.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 50
SDW and trumptman: do you guys listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News?
post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

SDW and trumptman: do you guys listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News?

buceta: Do you listen to Keith Olbermann or watch MSNBC news?

I need to know so I can dismiss your comments with the caricatures in my brain while ignoring the actual words you typed.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #35 of 50
Chu is right. Every group of people is like teenagers, doesn't matter which group or where the group is. It could be in asia , in europe or in america, without leadership a group is acting on the most common denominator, seeking comfortness, fearing the unknown, acting impulsively.

It's like a mob, a single human can be intelligent and reasonable, a mob of humans is not, never.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #36 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

buceta: Do you listen to Keith Olbermann or watch MSNBC news?

I need to know so I can dismiss your comments with the caricatures in my brain while ignoring the actual words you typed.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

buceta: Do you listen to Keith Olbermann or watch MSNBC news?

Nope.
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I have looked at the policies. They are utterly ridiculous and wrongheaded. We're doing nothing about energy independence. We're doing nothing about nuclear power. We're doing nothing about building more oil refineries for the short term. We're doing nothing about expanding domestic oil exploration. We're doing nothing about converting to natural gas power. What we are doing is telling people they can save the planet by not turning on air conditioning in 100 degree weather, installing fucking fluorescent light bulbs and using less toilet paper. Then we're telling them they are adolescent fools and that only Mr. Government can help.

The only way to get off foreign energy dependence is to get off oil. An adult would understand that. Teenagers shout "drill, baby, drill" and "more refineries!"
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The only way to get off foreign energy dependence is to get off oil. An adult would understand that. Teenagers shout "drill, baby, drill" and "more refineries!"

So we should use coal and nuclear then.
post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

So we should use coal and nuclear then.

Coal, no. Too polluting, and damaging to the environment to collect. Nuclear, would work if we could make it terrorist proof. Thanks to Bush, we have a gazillion more terrorists than we ever had before he stirred up the ant hill, so unfortunately, we need to take that into consideration.

What I'm talking about is pure renewable energy sources. Solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Chu: Americans Like Teenagers on Energy