Belief is only something I can count on or depend on. The wind won't blow
and the sun doesn't shine all the time. The thing that I do believe is the
preconceived closed mind s of people.
What I don't understand is what's so great about our fossil fuel
dependency status quo? It pollutes our air and water, it creates yo-yo pricing
and economic shocks in our economy with every global political hiccup (e.g.,
think Putin's gas and take over of Ukraine), it guzzles water, traps miners
underground, it funds terrorism and forces us into Mideast wars (e.g., first
Iraqi war), etc.Renewable energy (such as wind and solar) is clean,
is price stable, doesn't consume precious water, poses generally safer work
conditions, creates domestic jobs in manufacturing and installation, and pours
its economic benefits into rural, agricultural communities... and no military is
needed to secure it! What's wrong with that?Many red states,
including Iowa, Kansas, Texas, and others see renewable energy's economic
benefits... conservatives, we should be following their lead... not defending
the Koch brothers and dirty energy!
Yes Steve, pollution is like peeing in a pool.And if everyone
keeps breaking the rules, then NOBODY is happy, even the guys responsible
for doing it.And good put about 3rd world countries.For
Americans to keep burning at rate 10 times the rest of the them, How can
we be the envy of the world, and expect India and China - with a
population 8 tomes ours - to quietly sit on the side lines wanting in, and NOT SHOW them a better way?!
There are some fine exceptions to the generalisation, but really it's not
going to happen here. You'll see it in the posts today.
Steve is correct: America is the greatest country on Earth. It is time we start
acting like it.America should be the leader, as Steve asserted.
Unfortunately, the current left-wing administration is too weak and afraid to
lead. Indeed, it is so afraid of doing anything that might violate notions of
political correctness, that it's default position is to do nothing. The American people must do what is right, even it means that they must
be the leaders, rather than the government. Thomas F. Meagher once said that
"If the American government ever abdicates its duty to lead, the American
people must take up the banner of leadership!"
Germany, a country that is much smaller than ours, and which receives far less
sunlight, is currently generating 3.5 times more energy from the sun than we
We did not create the climate cannot control it. Been record cold in many
places. Besides warm weather more pleasant than cold weather. Just a way to
use what we can't control to control what we do.
There are those who claim that the earth is getting warmer, even though data
shows otherwise. There are those in the "warming" group who have
stopped using "global warming" and resort to "global change".
In other words, since facts dispute their core argument, the change their core
argument.I often drive past the large windmill generators in the
mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon. More than half the time, they are not turning and
they are not generating electricity. Several neighbors have installed solar
panels on their homes. They all have computers connected to those panels to
record the amount of electricity generated. ALL of them are disappointed with
the results. Those panels are not generating as much electricity as promised.
At the rate that those panels generate electricity, those panels will never pay
for themselves before they need to be replaced.Yes, we can change
"habits". Yes, we can landscape with plants that require little water.
Yes, we can drive fuel efficient cars. No, we cannot change the climate.
@higvAcid rain, air pollution, ozone hole...we've had a lot of
influence from things we've thrown into the air over the last couple
centuries. California and Arizona have their warmest Jan-April on record so far
this year (while Michigan and Wisconsin have their 3rd coolest, globally
it's around a top 10 warmest January-April). It's not as
simple as just saying warm weather (and either way I prefer colder weather). If
sea level rises just a few feet that'll displace millions of people
globally. Increasing ocean acidification, melting glaciers, and sometimes warmer
isn't better if it turns Spain into something closer to Morocco for
To Roland Kayser's point, Germany's is now getting over 50% of their
energy needs from renewables. Hmm, I wonder why we can't? Do you think
it's because we've sold our country to the 1% or what?
I assume you know a lot about global warming. How much has it warmed in the last
20 yrs? When in the earth's history did the climate not change? What
perfect/ideal climate are you comparing our current climate to? When did that
climate exist? How far have we deviated from that ideal climate? How long have
humans been causing harm to the climate? Were there any changes in climate
before humans? If humans stopped doing all the "bad" things they are
doing to the climate, what would happen to the climate? I am civil.
Would love to have a discussion in a calm manner. But it seems if you bring up
logical rational questions to this movement you are immediately marginalized and
labeled anti science and a "denier." This is generally from those who
believe to be very tolerant. Look, I don't believe in this.
IMO it is the biggest power grab hoax EVER perpetrated on mankind. It is a
mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias. There are bad
people in government who have made millions on this scheme and at the end of the
day want control of more of your life.
We all live in a greenhouse. We are filling that greenhouse with toxic vapors.
Eventually, we will choke. Everyone knows that, except the conservatives among
us who are all for increasing the output of toxic vapors. It's a form of
insanity. Wouldn't it be nice if we could make a smoking room like
they have at the SL Airport and make all the conservatives stay in it so the
rest of us could breathe?
OK, deniers -- All "Global Warming" aside, Why
is energy independence BAD, or Wrong?Why is green, clean and renewable
energy BAD, or Wrong?Why is an infinite energy supply BAD, or Wrong?Why is building a better world and future for our posterity BAD, or Wrong?Seriously, If you can't see that, Then yours is nothing more
than a one-sided, biased, political rant.
There appear to be only two options for climate change not to be correct.
Either the super simple solutions everybody offers on comment boards like this
are totally overlooked by the actual scientists because they are idiots or the
scientists are controlled by a vast conspiracy.I know some folks who
work in scientific fields (some related to climate). They seem bright and
honest to me. Also, it seems unlikely they would miss simple things that
non-scientists know and can roll off their tongues.That leaves us
with a conspiracy. But I see no viable examples of vast conspiracies where
folks are not breaking with the pack like it is going out of style. Stalin had
the gulags. Yet there was Soljenitsin and thousands of others. The Mafia kills
folks who squeal, yet there is a long list who have testified against the Mafia.
These folks risk their lives to report the truth yet we are supposed to believe
that scientists (who are incredibly independent in my experience) across all
kinds of ethnic, cultural, language and other borders are controlled and
virtually none break with the pack?It doesn't wash.
Re: "The world wants, needs and is waiting for American leadership on global
warming."No, it isn't.The world is waiting to
snap up any fossil fuels we don't use, step in and produce any saleable
products we refuse to produce, and walk all over us and any weaker neighbor
nations, as we intentionally make our economy and our military weak.The callow, unsupportable notion of a world anxious to hold hands with America
and sing kumbaya as we slide into another dark age, is just the latest dangerous
leftist fiction.Will we eventually develop better energy sources
that have less impact on the earth? Sure. But, we're not there yet [BTW,
Germany doesn't produce more than half its power from renewable resources
-- fission-based nuclear energy is considered a finite, mineral fuel]. And, when
we do get there, market forces will anoint winners and consign losers to the ash
heap of history.Corrupt political leaders shouldn't be
pretending to outthink the much smarter invisible hand.In the
meantime, a dangerous centrally-planned energy-industry restructure, addressing
effects too nuanced to reliably measure, is madness.
@Mike Richards:I have rooftop solar panels, and I am not
disappointed at all. The last two months I have generated more electricity than
my home used. I'm also very happy with my Camry hybrid, which gets more
than 40 miles to the gallon on average. The terms "climate
change" and "global warming" are both used in the scientific
literature and mean different things. "Global warming" refers to the
long-term trend of a rising average global temperature."Climate change"
, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing
average global temperature.Both terms have been used for decades.
Of course we can change the climate. We've been changing it for
a long time. Admittedly, it will be more difficult to undo the changes we have
made, but perhaps we can change the trajectory.
Show me one piece of solid evidence (not a model) that CO2 is the culprit behind
anything weather-related on Earth today, and I might consider CO2 reductions.
Oh, you can't? I didn't think so. Neither can the
@ thinkin manApparently you've never heard of the planet called
Problem is... we can't do ANYTHING until the Legislature tells us to...
Once again. What is an ideal climate? Did it exist 100, 1000, 2000, 5000 years
ago? How do you know we don't need to warm up to get there? How do you
know we need to cool down to get there? Who decided what is the "ideal"
we are comparing our current climate too? How many severe storms are
considered acceptable? Hurricanes? Tornadoes? Floods? Droughts? They are
always occurring? So how many can happen without people saying the sky is
falling? So many of you know SO much about this. Please enlighten
me. Who do you think would get more government grant
money????????.....A Scientist trying to prove "climate
change/disruption." B Scientist trying to prove that this is a hoax.
Follow the money.
@ugottabkidnRe "To Roland Kayser's point, Germany's is
now getting over 50% of their energy needs from renewables"...Hmmmmm... problem is... I know that's not true. A quick
Google search would do. Google "Energy in Germany" or "where does
Germany get their energy".This is what Wikipedia reports...Energy in Germany is sourced predominantly by fossil fuels, followed by
nuclear power, biomass (wood and biofuels), wind, hydro and solar. Germany is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world. In 2009, it
consumed energy from the following sources:Oil 34.6%Bituminous
coal 11.1%Lignite 11.4%Natural gas 21.7%Nuclear power 11.0%Hydro- and wind power 1.5%OthersGermany is the fifth-largest
consumer of oil in the world. Germany is the third-largest consumer of
natural gas in the world.Because of its rich coal deposits it has a long
tradition of fueling its economy with coal.(All from Wikipedia)When people spout things they heard as if they are fact (but they
aren't true) it makes people question the rest of the case they post
claiming it's fact (because they heard somebody say it).
@Irony GuyThanks for that--lol
To "Roland Kayser" you are wrong. The US produces over 500 TWh from
green sources, while Germany produces 28 TWh. Last I checked 500 is greater
than 28. Unless you want to consider nuclear power as "green power".To "LDS Tree-Hugger" those are a bad thing since they will KILL
people unless there is a viable replacement. Solar and wind cannot replace gas
or coal plants due to their variability. We don't have enough geothermal
or hydroelectric to power everything.How do you plan on getting rid
of the people that would not be able to afford electricity if we went 100% with
the current technology in "green" energy?
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "LDS Tree-Hugger" Solar
and wind cannot replace gas or coal plants due to their variability. We
don't have enough geothermal or hydroelectric to power everything.-----Solar and wind are available precisley when they are needed
most -- during PEAK hours.FYI -- If you knew how a power grid
operated, you would know that nuclear is not variable, and is a constant
source, wind and hydro are opened and closed to augment any system.The future is now -- Solar, wind, hydro will augment -- not 100%
replace -- nuclear, geo-thermal, tidal power systems.Tell me again
-- Why should we burn coal and gas during the God given Daily light, when
we humans need it most?You defiant, irrational insistance defies all
@Open Minded Mormon,Recently went on a tour of the "Solar
One" plant in Boulder City, Nevada. You may be disappointed to learn that
this and most modern solar plants are a combination solar/gas power. At night
(when they get 0 energy from the sun) the gas turns on and heats the boilers and
turns the turbines. 25% of the power generated comes from natural gas...Don't know if you've noticed... but they don't turn the
lights off on the strip at night, that's when they turn them on (when they
are getting no energy from the sun). They also use air conditioning at night
(it's often above 100 degrees at midnight in LV). But you are right that
the peak comes when they have the sun, but I want you to note that they still
need a LOT of electricity when the sun is NOT available (so they still use
fossil fuels even in the Solar One facility).Solar is good... but it
will not replace all fossil fuels needed. We need both for the foreseeable
To "Open Minded Mormon" but they are NOT VIABLE. What that means is
that they cost so much more than gas, coal, or nuclear power that their use
would bankrupt you if you had to use only solar or wind. Plus, wind and solar
are not primary power sources, so you have to have a gas powered plant running
idle to pick up any slack the wind and solar can't produce. That means
that you have 2 power sources doing the job of 1. That sure doesn't sound
efficient.Imagine you switch your house over to nothing but wind and
solar power. How long would you put up with intermittent power before you
connected to a fossil fuel burning source?Burning coal and gas
during the day time makes sense because you don't have the variability like
you get with wind and solar. The sun does not shine with equal intensity
throughout the day, and the wind does not blow at a constant rate either.
RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT What that means is that they
cost so much more than gas, coal, or nuclear power that their use would bankrupt
you if you had to use only solar or wind. Imagine you switch your
house over to nothing but wind and solar power. ======= All or Nothing, All or Nothing, All or Nothing.Who
said All-or-Nothing [hint: Only YOu and 2 bits]I said nuclear,
hydro, geo-thermal, tidal, wind, solar, AND Fossil fueled [not your
mythical, unscientifically proven Abiogenic petroleum origin theories].The problem is yours, not mine -- good evening.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT@Open Minded Mormon,Recently
went on a tour of the "Solar One" plant in Boulder City, Nevada. You may
be disappointed to learn that this and most modern solar plants are a
combination solar/gas power. At night (when they get 0 energy from the sun) the
gas turns on and heats the boilers and turns the turbines. 25% of the power
generated comes from natural gas...=========== Doesn't that mean the same amount of power with 25% LESS fuel being
burned, and for free, and forever?But, you can't see that...
To "LDS Liberal" wow, you really are out on a limb.Why build
2 power sources when you can do the same thing with 1? Other than nuclear,
everything you want to build currently cannot supply the energy needed.Geo-thermal does not exist in sufficient quantities to supply the US power
needs, unless you are willing to convert Yellowstone into a giant geothermal
power plant. Tidal power works well, except when storms roll in and alter the
way water is coming in. Wind and solar are variable and require a second power
source.Nuclear isn't considered a green energy source. Are you
sure you want to support that?If Abiogenic Petroleum is
unscientifically proven, why are so many scientists researching it? Also, why
is it that the Russians have found oil at depths below the oldest fossils that
would produce oil? You also should realize that fossil fuel theories are
unproven. How do you explain the oil wells that were once dry, and now contain
oil that is chemically different from the original oil?You seem to
have problems with anything that doesn't conform to your preconcieved ideas
or the commands of your liberal masters.
Last time someone said to me what's the worst that could happen if we cut
carbon emissions I said .. We could experience global cooling, i. e. the ice age
that climate scientists in the 1970's said was going to happen.