User Controls
I did the political compass test, and apparently I'm...
-
2018-08-04 at 11:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Then why has atmospheric CO2 doubled in the last century?
And what happened to the massive amounts of coal and oil we burned? You can actually see some oil fields on maps or from space, like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. What happens when all a planets natural carbon reserves, accumulated over a billion years, get burned in the span of 100 years?
If we are in fact at "peak oil" right now then the effect of burning the remainder of the supply would be doubling whatever polution has occured from oil products in the past 100 years. Not likely to significantly harm life.
I have no doubt that burning fossil fuels contributes negatively to the earth's atmosphere, but I don't think the damage of continuing to burn is outweighed by the damage of discontinuing to burn by an incredibly large margin. -
2018-08-04 at 11:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano If we are in fact at "peak oil" right now then the effect of burning the remainder of the supply would be doubling whatever polution has occured from oil products in the past 100 years. Not likely to significantly harm life.
I have no doubt that burning fossil fuels contributes negatively to the earth's atmosphere, but I don't think the damage of continuing to burn is outweighed by the damage of discontinuing to burn by an incredibly large margin.
So if we are at peak oil right now, then every year from now until 2118 or so we will have progressively less oil to burn?
What will that do to the oil price? What will that do to economic growth?
By 2118 we will have as much oil to use as we did in 1918, meaning barely any at all.
In 1918 petroleum was sold from pharmacies. A resource exclusively for the rich.
There was enough sold to run a few hundred boats and a few thousand cars. None for heating or the like. -
2018-08-05 at 12:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Climate change is a real phenomenon. You can't burn geological quantities of coal and oil and drain whole underground aquifers and rivers to irrigate vast swathes of land, and expect the climate to remain exactly the same.
Interestingly the #1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour.
But the CO2 level increases constantly. It used to be below 200ppm a hundred years or so ago, now it's above 400ppm. Humans start complaining of stuffy air at about 1000ppm.
Using the air we breathe as a landfill dump is not sustainable.
of course its real...the planet doesnt have a magic thermostat someplace that people can adjust how they see fit.
the issue i have with it is the constant scams that are being invented to use it as an excuse to further tax the proles and reduce their standard of living.
thats adorable how youre following in lock-step with the global warming rhetoric. 200ppm a hundred years ago, eh. 400ppm now, eh. now tell me about the ice core samples that showed atmospheric gasses at several orders of magnitude higher than what they are now before any human technology...and there were 3-foot wide dragonflys and trees that were nearly 1,000 feet tall.
global warming is myth perpetuated by scam artists has followers with the same lack of intellect and mental capacity as low as any followers of any other organized religion. -
2018-08-05 at 12:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock now tell me about the ice core samples that showed atmospheric gasses at several orders of magnitude higher than what they are now before any human technology…and there were 3-foot wide dragonflys and trees that were nearly 1,000 feet tall.
No problem.
Does that sound like fun to you?
Not to mention that that sort of increase in CO2 level is also associated with massive increases in acidity?
Like unpleasantly low pH seawater and lakewater? How does a beach where the water burns sound to you?
I hate shitlibs too, but I'm not going to let my hatred for those few jedis and weak minded goyim destroy the planet. -
2018-08-05 at 12:29 AM UTCIf those estimates are to be believed, (they have been saying we are at "peak oil" year since the 70's) then yes.
Although with new shale oil extraction techniques and more natural gas implementation, I'm not sure how much more life the fossil fuel actually has left. It could be quite a bit more than previously expected.
.
Obviously this is a giantic problem, but until there are proven energy solutions that are economically self sufficient, new oil extraction technology will continue to dominate the energy sector.
My dad's a farmer and he agreed to be paid to let this windmill company survey his land. If they decide to actually build one on his land, he gets quite a bit of money, I forgot how much.
The problem is, windmills aren't sustainable without government subsidies. They're expensive to build and maintain, they're very inefficient, and they lose money. They aren't viable large scale.
Most of the corn my dad grows goes to an ethanol plant where it's then sent out to be mixed with gasoline up to 85% (E-85 goves you poor mileage though). This is techinally self-sufficient because it turns a profit just above break even, although in reality it's subsidized pretty heavily as well because the profit margin would be so low otherwise.
Every politician that comes to Iowa has to brag about how much money they want to give to ethanol subsidies, because they know they aren't gonna set a good tone for their campaign if they lose the first electoral state because the farmers turned on them. Ted Cruz miraculously got away with it by a few votes, but that just doesn't happen.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-08-05 at 12:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill No problem.
Does that sound like fun to you?
Not to mention that that sort of increase in CO2 level is also associated with massive increases in acidity?
Like unpleasantly low pH seawater and lakewater? How does a beach where the water burns sound to you?
I hate shitlibs too, but I'm not going to let my hatred for those few jedis and weak minded goyim destroy the planet.
what is your point -
2018-08-05 at 12:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano If those estimates are to be believed, (they have been saying we are at "peak oil" year since the 70's) then yes.
Although with new shale oil extraction techniques and more natural gas implementation, I'm not sure how much more life the fossil fuel actually has left. It could be quite a bit more than previously expected.
.
Obviously this is a giantic problem, but until there are proven energy solutions that are economically self sufficient, new oil extraction technology will continue to dominate the energy sector.
My dad's a farmer and he agreed to be paid to let this windmill company survey his land. If they decide to actually build one on his land, he gets quite a bit of money, I forgot how much.
The problem is, windmills aren't sustainable without government subsidies. They're expensive to build and maintain, they're very inefficient, and they lose money. They aren't viable large scale.
Most of the corn my dad grows goes to an ethanol plant where it's then sent out to be mixed with gasoline up to 85% (E-85 goves you poor mileage though). This is techinally self-sufficient because it turns a profit just above break even, although in reality it's subsidized pretty heavily as well because the profit margin would be so low otherwise.
Every politician that comes to Iowa has to brag about how much money they want to give to ethanol subsidies, because they know they aren't gonna set a good tone for their campaign if they lose the first electoral state because the farmers turned on them. Ted Cruz miraculously got away with it by a few votes, but that just doesn't happen.
oil extraction techniques continue to advance, making previously unavailable repositories extractable...including sideways-drilling and super-deep drilling. -
2018-08-05 at 12:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano If those estimates are to be believed, (they have been saying we are at "peak oil" year since the 70's) then yes.
Although with new shale oil extraction techniques and more natural gas implementation, I'm not sure how much more life the fossil fuel actually has left. It could be quite a bit more than previously expected.
.
Obviously this is a giantic problem, but until there are proven energy solutions that are economically self sufficient, new oil extraction technology will continue to dominate the energy sector.
My dad's a farmer and he agreed to be paid to let this windmill company survey his land. If they decide to actually build one on his land, he gets quite a bit of money, I forgot how much.
The problem is, windmills aren't sustainable without government subsidies. They're expensive to build and maintain, they're very inefficient, and they lose money. They aren't viable large scale.
Most of the corn my dad grows goes to an ethanol plant where it's then sent out to be mixed with gasoline up to 85% (E-85 goves you poor mileage though). This is techinally self-sufficient because it turns a profit just above break even, although in reality it's subsidized pretty heavily as well because the profit margin would be so low otherwise.
Every politician that comes to Iowa has to brag about how much money they want to give to ethanol subsidies, because they know they aren't gonna set a good tone for their campaign if they lose the first electoral state because the farmers turned on them. Ted Cruz miraculously got away with it by a few votes, but that just doesn't happen.
At the current price for electricity wind is uneconomic. But if it doubles it is.
We missed out on some wind turbines on our land in Ireland, even though we own a few hills. Big massive shame. We will have the wind stolen from over us.
We even missed out on getting paid for the overhead power lines, as our paranoid schizophrenic neighbour wouldn't let them put a pole on his land. Fucker.
Corn ethanol, from what I hear, is only a sleazy con that serves to raise the price of Mexicans' tortillas.
Biodiesel is slightly better, but even then I don't know if it even breaks even, when calorie of mineral oil is compared to calorie of plant oil.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-08-05 at 12:59 AM UTC
lol wut -
2018-08-05 at 1:47 AM UTCYeah, my parents invested in a few ethanol plants and a few biodiesel plants about 20 years ago. The ethanol plants pay out a ton in dividends becuase they're so profitable right now, but the biodiesel plants aren't paying.
Biodiesel isn't doing all that well yet becuase they don't have nearly as much subsidy money as ethanol.
Our soybeans mostly go to China, and prices are hit from the tarrifs. I guess there's a bailout coming but unless this trade war actually ends it's going to continue to get worse.
Originally posted by Cootehill We missed out on some wind turbines on our land in Ireland, even though we own a few hills. Big massive shame. We will have the wind stolen from over us.
We even missed out on getting paid for the overhead power lines, as our paranoid schizophrenic neighbour wouldn't let them put a pole on his land. Fucker.
What does electricity cost over there? I figure it'd be higher with having to import more energy. -
2018-08-05 at 1:48 AM UTC
-
2018-08-05 at 1:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Yeah, my parents invested in a few ethanol plants and a few biodiesel plants about 20 years ago. The ethanol plants pay out a ton in dividends becuase they're so profitable right now, but the biodiesel plants aren't paying.
Biodiesel isn't doing all that well yet becuase they don't have nearly as much subsidy money as ethanol.
Our soybeans mostly go to China, and prices are hit from the tarrifs. I guess there's a bailout coming but unless this trade war actually ends it's going to continue to get worse.
What does electricity cost over there? I figure it'd be higher with having to import more energy.
the irony is biodiesel is a better choice for a fuel than ethanol...which is not a fuel. -
2018-08-05 at 2:19 AM UTCare the questions like "do you want to behead homos" "did hitler do anything wrong"?
-
2018-08-05 at 2:22 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-08-05 at 3:44 AM UTC
-
2018-08-05 at 7:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS I swear you basically have to be full-on Nazi, Stalanist/Tankie, or the living embodiment of ancap memes to score anywhere outside of left-lib.
So do you think it's designed to make people think they're leftists, so they actually become them? I wouldn't put it past left-wingers. -
2018-08-05 at 7:43 AM UTC
-
2018-08-05 at 11:58 AM UTC
-
2018-08-05 at 4:05 PM UTCTotse was a libertarian forum, so it's probably natural we have a lot of libertarian views we take for granted, but look at how some of these questions are phrased:
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
I mean that's obviously true.
I have more in common with a middle class person in Germany or America than I do with a rich person, or a bum. So does that make you left wing? How about if I rephrase that, to say:People are ultimately divided more by race than by nationality.
Also true, I have more in common with an Australian than I do with a Nigerian living here, but suddenly it's a "right wing" sentiment.
The whole left-right thing is bullshit anyway. -
2018-08-05 at 4:09 PM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
