• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

Actually, what will take us back to the dark ages is "thinking" like we see in the OP and two or the three subsequent posts. Fortunately, humanity has proven to be much more creative and ingenious.
 
Last edited:
There may also be scope for small-scale hydro.

Back in the middle ages there were lots of water mills. Small comparatively isolated communities could provide at least some of their electricity by opening up old mill races

We (Trout Unlimited) just spent fifty years or so tearing those things out, now you want to put them back in? ;)

Those things play hell with small streams. They reduce the flow upstream, causing silt to build up which raises the temperature of the water. Warmer creeks have fewer trout, less stable banks and poorer water quality.

I'm all for alternative power, but non-damming hydroelectric, like tyr mentioned should be the way to go.
 
(...)
we must cut our carbon emissions 80% by 2050.
(...)
WHO is willing to return to the dark ages, permanently. Show of hands please?

Please demonstrate, by reasonable extrapolation and supportive evidence how the second statement is the only or only likely means of achieving the first statement.

BTW - you do understand what the consequences of not reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (actually by 2025 by many estimates) will be, don't you?

The full impacts of unabridged human business as usual emissions upon our climate will make the dark ages seem like a stroll through paradise.
 
Remember when we needed to stop using firewood as the power for our society because forests were disappearing causing society to regress into an unending hell......no wait we invented new technologies and never really looked back.

Funny how that happens.
 
It's amazing how short sighted Libertarians and some conservatives are relative to their inability to see how economic growth car occur, maybe even flourish alongside changes to the status quo.

In the 40+ years I've been paying attention I've heard nothing but doom when any attempts are made to limit pollution or dangerous byproducts of industry. The reality is those industries continued but in addition, entrepreneurial creativity created new technologies and new industries to to implement those controls.
 
It's worse than that.

As soon as Mankind discovered fire, he was putting out carbon emissions beyond those that just came from simply breathing. In fact, dirty wood- or coal-burning fires probably would have resulted in greater carbon emissions per-person than our much more modern energy sources.

The warmers don't want us to go back to the Dark Ages. To satisfy them, we'd need to go much, much farther backward than that.

Firewood is a renewable resource that simply recycles carbon already in the environment, just as breathing and eating/defecating do not contribute to the excess Carbon problem.

Coal, oil and gas take carbon that has been sequestered out of the environment and adds it back into the active carbon cycle.

No rational person wants to eliminate technology nor the tremendous benefits it bestows upon our species, rather many wish to accelerate and improve our technologies to move beyond its Stone Age roots before the side effects of those primitive, luddite ways before the damages they cause become critical and well nigh unaddressable and irreversible.
 
:confused:

Who says it couldn't? Problem is, all the solutions will result in higher prices for the consumer.

Based on what?

For 40 years I have been hearing this argument, for 40 years I have never seen evidence it is true
 
I expect the number of hydroelectric stations to decrease, but the effeminacy to increase along with less intrusive design. The overall load generated by hydroelectric might decrease, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it stay even.

Well, hydro doesn't necessarily depend upon existent feeder locations, there are also the pumped hydro storage systems that create artificial resevoirs, where excess and off-peak power is used to pump water into a resevoir and then recovered as needed during peak power or low/no generation periods. It's one method often looked at to even out many alternative energy systems that do not provide 24/7 on-demand power (solar, wind, etc.,). It isn't hugely efficient, but it does provide a slew of additional use benefits.
 
I never said there wouldn't be a price, but the OP suggests we can't adapt. My criticism is of the OPs hyperbole and poor understanding of, well, anything as far as I can tell.

1. I asked SPECIFICS. HOW will you fly to Mumbai without creating tons of carbon dioxide? Answer that please.

2. HOW will you visit your auntie in a far away state? Exactly?
Public transportation uses lots of fossil fuels. When you get there, you still need cars.

All of this is in the context of keeping our nation operating. You drive to work, use many resources there, especially in factories. Those must continue.

So where does the 87% reduction come from?

Well CERTAINLY not from any of the lovely folks flying and driving to all the environmental conventions all around the world.

http://www.conferencealerts.com/environment.htm

Suckers/taxpayers are footing the tab for all this globe-trotting, including one to Cancun, Mexico.

Why videoconference when you can fly!

And tell the unwashed masses how to live their lives.
 
Firewood.....

No rational person wants to eliminate technology nor the tremendous benefits it bestows upon our species, rather many wish to accelerate and improve our technologies to move beyond its Stone Age roots before the side effects of those primitive, luddite ways before the damages they cause become critical and well nigh unaddressable and irreversible.

1. People who demand 87% reductions in carbon emissions are terribly irrational. They INSIST on eliminating the tremendous benefits technology bestows on humans. Indeed, Leftists have long LAMENTED technology, from nuclear power, to automobiles. The MORON, Jerry Brown, proclaimed thirty years ago, "We have to find a better way" than freeways, as he stopped all freeway construction and expansion then. What is that "better way"?

Governor Moonbeam Elect never said. He's still driving around, isnt' he.

2. IF, in fact, all these carbon emissions are SOOOO terrible and critical, then WHY do hundreds of thousands of enviro-hypocrites fly and drive around the world endlessly to conferences? Why don't THEY practice what they PREACH?

Please, don't answer. Leftists never answer honestly.

http://www.conferencealerts.com/environment.htm

Oh, and do YOU have a car that runs on "firewood," TShaitanaku?

I'm betting you don't. Nor a firewood stove in the kitchen, nor a firewood furnace and water heater...
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised JonathanQuick had time to create this thread with his busy schedule of informing all the barnyard animals that the sky is falling.
 
<snipped all the insane ramblings>

You have such a narrow view of humanity's abilities. If humanity worked like you think it does we'd still be living in caves.

Know what I think would be cool to have back? Intercontinental zeppelin flights; bring back the luxury of flight.
 
Last edited:
The ONLY solution is to cut back 80%.

How easily such pronouncements trip from the lips of Barack Obama, or Al Gore, or U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

WHO is willing to return to the dark ages, permanently. Show of hands please?

You have just shown all the logical thought processes of a Rushblob fan who has had too many beers.

By 2050, world population will be ~40% greater than it is today.

This assumes no major pandemics due to over-crowding or poor nutrition or break down of sanitation or ecological damage or more benign influences like schools teaching kids what a condom is for.

Please divide the allowable 20% of energy by 1.40. You get 14.2%.
Everyone in favor of cutting your PERSONAL use of energy by 86%, please feel free to do so.

You pulled that number out of your ass. You assume that all of our energy is fossil-fuel-derived. From that point, your whole line of reasoning (if it can be called that) starts a bobsled run into the latrine pit.

We drive too much to begin with. It harms our health because we get fat and lazy, and we have to breathe in the fumes produced just to produce the fuel and then to burn it. It also harms to food supply when the run-off from all the roads we build gets into the salmon spawning streams or similarly sensitive environments. That our whole transportation system is built around cars and long commutes, people who wish not to drive, or who cannot drive for reasons of some disability or age, or who should not drive because they are dangerous degenerates, addicts or lunatics are either forced to drive or limited in their ability to move about freely or to be productive citizens of an industrialized society. If counties simply stopped encouraging urban sprawl and encouraged the revitalization of cities with places of employment within walking distance of most of the population, a great saving of energy could be had right there. Add in the savings when food can be produced on local farms that are no longer being squeezed out by the tacky-box-builders and you have taken another huge bite out of energy requirements.

Changes in life styles are not always impossible to achieve, nor does the destruction of one industry have to mean the total and permanent loss of jobs, nor do the adaptations we must make neccessarily make life more miserable or the human spirit less joyful.

As one example, every night, the electricity to power and entire city of a couple thousand is spent just on lighted billboards and neon lights of businesses that are closed for the night. in Tacoma. As a result, there are thousands of children who will never have the opportunity to see the Milky War or the Persead meteor shower. I was blessed, in one way, to have grown up in the country, far from city lights, where I could see such things and marvel at them.

I shall always remember one source of amusement from my Army days and otherwise miserable field exercises. Many was the young soldier who, when night fell on his first field problem, would look up and ask why there was this strange glowing band in the sky that stretched from one horizon to the other. And I forgot how many utterly freaked the first time they saw a single meteor falling on a moonless night.

Okay, I know that people are going to scream rape about shutting down the billboards and neon lights at night. I don'tb really give a rat's. The financial benefit of one party is less important than the harm that that individual's ecconomic activity does to others without some balancing ecconomic improvement.

Billboards are a traffic hazard. Billboards hide the beauty of nature and waste resources. It is hard to see pedestrians and pot holes at eye-level when you have white light streamingh into your eyes from a billboard. Artifical light at night makes one area look brighter, but makes the shadows look much darker.

Maybe, instead of advertising on billboards which just annoy the hell out of people who are not interested in your product, you could buy some advertising space in a newspaper to keep that crucial sector of our ecconomy andour culture going.

Your problem is very simple. You have no capacity for creative thinking.

Ever wonder why the really talented artists tend to espouse the more liberal causes?
 
BTW - you do understand what the consequences of not reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (actually by 2025 by many estimates) will be, don't you?
I love a question I can answer: No. No, I don't. Nor do you. And we are both aware of various estimates.

The full impacts of unabridged human business as usual emissions upon our climate will make the dark ages seem like a stroll through paradise.
I think you need to worry first about peak oil, gasoline unavailable at any price (except to the military and the connected), and economic chaos.

You'll wish AGW was the problem.
 
1. People who demand 87% reductions in carbon emissions are terribly irrational. They INSIST on eliminating the tremendous benefits technology bestows on humans. Indeed, Leftists have long LAMENTED technology, from nuclear power, to automobiles. The MORON, Jerry Brown, proclaimed thirty years ago, "We have to find a better way" than freeways, as he stopped all freeway construction and expansion then. What is that "better way"?

Mass transit and a limit to urban sprawl.

Please, don't answer. Leftists never answer honestly.

Bull flops. Knee-jerk right wingers don't listen without their ideological filters stuck in their ears.
 
I think you need to worry first about peak oil, gasoline unavailable at any price (except to the military and the connected), and economic chaos.

You'll wish AGW was the problem.

Then we'd bloody well better find a way to use less of it. The right-wing is on a suicide mission when they argue against conservation measures.
 
1. I asked SPECIFICS. HOW will you fly to Mumbai without creating tons of carbon dioxide? Answer that please.

The CO2 isn't as big an issue (as explained in the post you edited to eliminate the inconvenient to your rants, explanation) as the source of the carbon that creates those emissions. Planes can use fuels that do not depend on previously sequestered geologic reserve feedstocks to produce them (biofuels or synthetic fuels created from carbon already at play in the active carbon cycle).

2. HOW will you visit your auntie in a far away state? Exactly?
Public transportation uses lots of fossil fuels. When you get there, you still need cars.

The transportation does not change merely the manner of powering them, public transportation is more efficient and cost effective but there is no reason that private transportation cannot be adapted to alternative power systems as well (electric, fuel cell, biofuels, syn-fuels - all have a role and potential in these areas).

All of this is in the context of keeping our nation operating. You drive to work, use many resources there, especially in factories. Those must continue.

There is no reason for any disruption at all. New power plants are built, as they come on-line, older plants are decommissioned. New cars, trains, ships, busses, trucks and planes are built, older ones are scrapped. It happens all the time, past, present and future. Instead on mining and processing coal and oil, we are creating alternative fuels and power plants. We gain energy independence, side-step looming "peak" resource issues, and deal with climate change while stimulating technological advancement and development as well as creating a wealth of new economic opportunites.
 
Mass transit and a limit to urban sprawl.



Bull flops. Knee-jerk right wingers don't listen without their ideological filters stuck in their ears.

Lovely. Leftists blow YOUR money for THEIR idiotic, grandiose schemes.

Here's Lefty's own Seattle, the most grandiose, the most budget-busting in America.

www.wikipedia.com


Costs of light rail construction and operation


The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects[23] shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile. Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet (55 m) below ground level.[24] These result in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail. At the other end of the scale, four systems (Baltimore MD, Camden NJ, Sacramento CA, and Salt Lake City UT) incurred costs of less than $20 million per mile. Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile.[23]
 

Back
Top Bottom