Know Your Enemies: The Green Channel' Environmentalists...

[amicus]

Lol, that describes you perfectly ami.

~~~

Ah, the faithful gather around to defend the faith, imagine that?

heh

 

[amicus]

I just realized, after my last Post to xssve, that is really is true that the Left is just smoke and mirrors, like swatting at a fog bank, there is really nothing of substance there, be it SSS, Pure, any of the regular faithful, nothing but air.

Interesting...



ami

 

[Guest]

Lol, that describes you perfectly ami.

Doesn't it?

Damn, but he's predictable.

 

[Guest]

I just realized, after my last Post to xssve, that is really is true that the Left is just smoke and mirrors, like swatting at a fog bank, there is really nothing of substance there, be it SSS, Pure, any of the regular faithful, nothing but air.

Interesting...



ami

Hardly.

You don't get it, do you?

We don't choose to discuss a damn thing with you.

You're ignorant.

You're annoying.

You cannot fathom progressive thinking.

Attempting to discuss anything of great intellect with you is a disappointment.

So we just - don't.

It's a waste of time.

Pure air?

Nahhh,.

We discuss things of importance away from you. On other forums. In PMs. In phone calls.

Silly dinosaur.

 

[amicus]

You cannot fathom progressive thinking.

Thank God, ahem, for that!

Actually, I do fathom slavery, the oppression of the individual of the self, the sacrifice your faith demands, I understand all too well, as do you...which is why you cannot and will not utilize the rational functions of your mind.

Nothing new here.

Amicus Veritas

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Let me begin by stating that my 'city folk' parody was a generalization. Great things happen in great Cities and they can be, but are not always, centers of learning and culture.

I cannot refute your 'belief' that global warming is truth, but if you care to read for a day or so, wander through Trysail's many references to factual evidence conerning climate and climate change, you will discover what I posted in bold, there is no objective science that supports man made climate change on a global scale.

I direct you to another truism; that as societies industrialize and become modern, the birth rate declines.

You should have no concern about there being 'country left', as in the distant future when even the African Continent is modernized, the population of the earth will be far less than it is now.

Even now, in many Euro Nations, the birth rate of the indigenous citizens is less than replacement value and immigrants from third world countries are brought in to prop up the population.

I am an atheist and I learned the hard way that one cannot debate a 'true believer', their faith is too strong and their minds are closed to reason.

Yer still thinking in absolutes, 1's and 0's, true or not. That only works when you look back at events that have already occurred.

Trysail's thread only picks out the evidence that supports one side of the argument. There is plenty of evidence that supports the other side. One side is right and the other is wrong. At some point in the future we may determine which that is. In the meantime we can only weigh the current evidence and act accordingly.

Read through my posts. I don't think I ever said I believed AGW to be true, only that, assuming both theories are equally likely to be true, doing something would likely result in a much higher overall quality of life than doing nothing.

You, on the other hand, have absolute conviction that AGW is not true, as in 0% chance of happening. That's not belief, that's faith, and a very strange thing for a self-professed atheist to possess.

Maybe you should think good and hard on which mind appears to be closed to reason here

 

[amicus]

Yer still thinking in absolutes, 1's and 0's, true or not. That only works when you look back at events that have already occurred.

Trysail's thread only picks out the evidence that supports one side of the argument. There is plenty of evidence that supports the other side. One side is right and the other is wrong. At some point in the future we may determine which that is. In the meantime we can only weigh the current evidence and act accordingly.

Read through my posts. I don't think I ever said I believed AGW to be true, only that, assuming both theories are equally likely to be true, doing something would likely result in a much higher overall quality of life than doing nothing.

You, on the other hand, have absolute conviction that AGW is not true, as in 0% chance of happening. That's not belief, that's faith, and a very strange thing for a self-professed atheist to possess.

Maybe you should think good and hard on which mind appears to be closed to reason here

~~~

The entire Universe is founded on absolutes; a thing either is or it is not.

You appear to have chosen the middle position, that of agnosticism, which you are free to do.

I said earlier if you want to pursue truth, that 'absolute' quality of existence, you are equipped to do so and you don't need my assistance. Nor do I gain a single thing by educating you.

I will repeat, for the final time to you, "There is no scientific evidence to support the theory of man caused planet wide global warming."

None.

Got that?

Amicus Veritas

 

[Stella_Omega]

But I believe, IMHO, that even if man were by some awful luck responsible for GW and it was AGW, that no matter how much we cut our productions of Co2 and any other greenhouse gases starting now we would have no effect on the cycle. It will happen no matter what we do, try to do. Man has a real bad habit of trying to change nature and fucking the whole thing up. As of this date, we (man) are not smart enough to even begin to comprehend what questions to ask, let alone what the answers to the questions are.

This is pretty interesting post from you, Zeb.

I said, years ago, that a debate class functioned by assigning students debate positions in opposition to their own personal choices. I found it enlightening to be assigned a, well, whatever you respond to, left wing, socialist, liberal, feminist point of view to defend and, of course, I never lost a debate regardless of which side I took.

Amicus

Liar.

I will repeat, for the final time to you, "There is no scientific evidence to support the theory of man caused planet wide global warming."

Final time? Promise?

 

[manyeyedhydra]

~~~

The entire Universe is founded on absolutes; a thing either is or it is not.

You appear to have chosen the middle position, that of agnosticism, which you are free to do.

I said earlier if you want to pursue truth, that 'absolute' quality of existence, you are equipped to do so and you don't need my assistance. Nor do I gain a single thing by educating you.

About that, Schrodinger has a cat he'd like to show you

I will repeat, for the final time to you, "There is no scientific evidence to support the theory of man caused planet wide global warming."

None.

Got that?

Amicus Veritas

That's a pretty strong claim. Do you sit on any climate advisory boards? Run any university science departments? I doubt even any of those people would be that confident either way and it's their job.

All you have is faith and you're too close-minded to admit it.

 

[stephen55]

I detect a certain...Failure To Communicate.....

A brief introduction, if I may... I have a personal interest in all things scientific, from Hubble Astronomy to Fusion Reactors and all in between.

So do I. It doesn't make either one of us a scientist.

I have a long time distaste for the scientific community and the trillions of dollars spent and wasted to present a 'theory' of anthropomorphic climate change, under an environmental umbrella of anti industrial, anti progress, anti humanity philosophy.

Perhaps the first part of your sentence explains the second. Objectivism died with Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, known to you as Ayn Rand. Perhaps you didn't get the memo. (That first name...does it rhyme with pain or with pine?)

Suppose also, that left alone, the energy industry, the free market, is perfectly capable of providing an energy supply that meets the demand of a free society and maintains the property rights of all individuals to enjoy the air, land and water in a near pristine state.

The energy industry and the free market has been more or less left alone for past century. That the air, land and water is not pristine may be partly due to our lack of certain individual property rights. As Einstein once said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Very bright guy, that Einstein, even for a member of the scientific community. He also once said, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." I wonder what the guy thought of Ayn Rand.

Forgive me my egregious sin, but something tells me the energy industry and free markets got us into this mess and I don't trust them to get us out. Of course if "this mess" is a mere supposition, then we have no mess that needs attention. Big Tobacco was right all along. Cigarettes don't cause cancer. There never was an environmental problem at Love Canal. Hooker Chemicals never buried 21,000 tons of toxic waste beneath the neighborhood. It was 21,000 tons of pristine air, land and water. The same people who cut baby formula with melamine can be relied on to preserve the safety of our food supply. The same people who advertise "Clean Coal" aren't the ones who argue for doing away with carbon dioxide's status as a greenhouse gas. Peabody Energy only markets coal that doesn't give off carbon dioxide when burned. Third grade, high sulfur coal laced with used diesel fuel and substandard fertilizer actually is synthetic fuel, which is why burning this alternative to imported oil deserves to qualify for generous tax breaks. There never was an artificially created energy crisis in California back in 2000/2001. Enron's Ken Lay never did mock the efforts by the California State government to thwart the practices of the energy wholesalers, saying, "In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money."

Yep, yep, yep....let's all give the energy industry and free markets a hand. They can fix anything. Just ask ami.

Moron.....

 

[LaRocha]

I've heard people say Anne Rand, but I think it's supposed to rhyme with 'Rhine'.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is just the move from man power to machines all over again. Amicus, you and Trysail are the 21st Century version of the Luddites. Progress has always been pro-humanity/anti-human. Machine over the individual, Welfare State over self-sufficient individual, Environment over the contemporary individual.

The Green Channel is the newest propaganda channel for progress. Using less resources or using them more efficiently is the future, whether human beings are responsible for sea levels rising or not(we are, if you're still curious...)

Progress always has some fairly significant casualties. There will always be the old guard who can't survive in the Brave New World. Some aren't old, they just don't fit right. If you remain entrenched you won't divert the path of the steam roller, you'll just get paved over.

 

[stephen55]

Denial...it's not just a river in Egypt...seriously.....

Super Colliders, Fusion Projects, and Environmental Correctness, employs thousands upon thousands of scientists and science professionals and gives them a very good living, paid for by the common man....for what end, I ask, if it is all a hoax?

It would be nice, for a change, if you could drop the nastiness and just address the thesis.

Thank You....

To what end if it is all a hoax? Aren't you being just a tad nasty by calling basic science a hoax, not to mention using "Environmental Correctness" as a pejorative, as if being in favor of clean air and water is both beneath contempt and so last century.

It has been alleged that you, perhaps a common man, haven't paid much in taxes over the years, so the cost might not be your dog in the fight anyway.

I can't help but remember you saying something about future capitalists, free enterprise, boffins, markets etc. solving any possible energy problems in the future.

So, when the world runs out of fossil fuels (they're not making them anymore or did you not get that memo), what's going to power your computer? Wind, solar, hydro and nuclear account for about 13% of all the power the world uses today. Nuclear fusion has potential and yes, the cost of developing it to fruition is enormous and it'll take a while. So, what's your beef? How much money has been spent by the oil and gas industry to find, extract, pipe, carry, refine and deliver gas and petroleum products in the last hundred years? Every dime was paid by the common man in price paid for the products and unholy tax subsidies to the industries (also perhaps not your concern).

There are no scientific obstacles to fusion reactors. Before the first atomic fission pile was tested, it was already well know how atomic fusion takes place. The only obstacles are engineering and technical ones, so let's hear it for good old American Know How.

As for your thesis, it's not a thesis. It's a hypothesis. The only ones working on it (badly) are those who prefer to conflate the status quo (stasis) with Objectivist status quo. She's dead. Get over it.

 

[amicus]

"...So, when the world runs out of fossil fuels (they're not making them anymore or did you not get that memo), what's going to power your computer? Wind, solar, hydro and nuclear account for about 13% of all the power the world uses today..."

~~~

Actually, 'they', are still making fossil fuels just as always. The world will not, run out of fossil fuels in the near future, in fact, the discoveries of Methane deposits in ocean shale are greater than all the oil and natural gas discovered and utilized.

The intense and enormously expensive research going on world wide concerning fusion reactors as power sources underlines the inability of 'alternative' sources of energy to provide energy. Your solar, wind and geothermal options are a bust in terms of the ability to deliver industrial amounts of energy.

With the absence of any new refineries, nuclear fission plants and the prohibition of new exploration, drilling and utilization of available resources, progressives need to put in place their plans to reduce the population of the industrial world by about half....as a doctor, I am sure you have some, 'final solutions' close at hand.

Like the California 'brownouts' and power availability requiring restrictions to only so many hours per day, the rest of the nation will undergo such deprivations and the economy will shrink and people will suffer.

Of course, that fits right in with the Progressive Liberal philosophy of population reduction by any means necessary; but the population in general may object and when they do, you might consider running for the hills.

When people finally realize the cause of their suffering, and they will, the failed Progressive agenda and all its' advocates will be held responsible.

"Laissez faire", "The phrase is French and literally means "let do", though it broadly implies "let it be" or "leave it alone." Laissez faire is a phrase and a philosophy that is totally alien to the control freaks of Progressive Liberalism who have faith, that they can control every aspect of human endeavors as the means to an end of total equality and poverty for all.

At the root of laissez faire, is human individual freedom as the basic premise and foundation for all political goals and actions; a fundamental you sadly display a total lack of comprehension.

The Liberal Mantra of kindness and concern for the lower class, through which a moral superiority is claimed, is in fact the most cruel and brutal assault on human individual freedom ever conceived. Quite like Christianity and Catholicism, who through Inquisitions and crucifications, pursued their faith, so too does Progressive Liberalism sacrifice the individual for the greater good, a faith that smells to high heaven.

Unfortunately, those advocates of faith, like yourself, cannot be reasoned with and must be destroyed down to the last man. History is filled with volumes concerning the well meaning tyrants who always had a 'greater good', in mind as they slaughtered those who defended their freedoms.

It took Communism in Russia 75 years of human suffering before it collapsed of internal rot, but less than 30 years for the National Socialists of Germany and Italy to recieve their just desserts.

When your time comes, will you face your destiny head on and proud, or blow your brains out yourself?

Your philosophy and of those who advocate Progressive Liberalism, is a scourge on humanity, a plague that will one day be a footnote to human history.

Take that to the bank.

Amicus Veritas

 

[Stella_Omega]

Where are these new fossil fuels being made, Ami?

 

[stephen55]

There's a reason it's called "Fossil Fuel"....

Ignoring for the moment, the difference between how they are still discovering deposits of fossil fuels and how they still are making them, a permanent feat accomplished by only the Truly Committed, where to start....

I'd like to start by thanking amicus for referring to me (I think) as one of the control freaks of Progressive Liberalism, as opposed to a coward of the Intellectual Left, bereft of morals and ethics, etc. etc. I'm not, but that will never do as I think Objectivism is a (pseudo) philosophy, bereft of intelligence, at least as expressed by intelligence above that seen at the local produce section.

as a doctor, I am sure you have some, 'final solutions' close at hand. Do be civil, amicus, after all it was you who suggested not being nasty. Not that you meant it.

Those California brownouts you mention were created by Ken Lay and the good guys at Enron, upstanding capitalists and free marketers all.

the Progressive Liberal philosophy of population reduction by any means necessary

I believe it was you who called on those unwilling to agree with you to give up and die.

Your philosophy and of those who advocate Progressive Liberalism, is a scourge on humanity, a plague that will one day be a footnote to human history.

I don't have a personal philosophy, other than to go along with Descartes and a few others of his ilk who (correctly) said that there is nothing so ludicrous that it hasn't been said by one philosopher or another. He was ahead of your time but I'm sure he would have had you in mind. (The Liberal Mantra of kindness and concern for the lower class, through which a moral superiority is claimed, is in fact the most cruel and brutal assault on human individual freedom ever conceived.) Just sayin'....

Now, getting back to Actually, 'they', are still making fossil fuels just as always....Neat trick....just how are they pulling that one off? And who are they? I'd like to have a chat with them.

Finally, in the spirit of reducing the nastiness, I'll stop calling you a moron. You are an Intellectual Moron, so taken by ideology you fall for stupid ideas. Your attempt at painting them in Rand's pseudo-philosophy of Objectivism only gets your fingers dirty.

 

[amicus]

'Fossil Fuels' for the main part, are not 'fossils' at all, rather swamp grass, like in the Louisiana Bogs, in which vegetable matter accumulates over time, is compressed with layers and layers and eventually change form into peat, coal and petroleum products.

It didn't stop happening the moment you became aware of our fuel supplies.

It continues to this very day and will continue forever.

Furthermore, all that precious fuel is slowly being subducted by tectonic plate action and will be recycled in the next millions years whether you like it or not.

I don't have a personal philosophy

It is more than obvious that you are not consciously aware of the philosophy you spout each time you Post.

Every human being has a philosophy, most are unaware of the details, as you seem to be. It is the accumulated life experiences one has that confirm or deny previously made assumptions and tests them against new situations.

I am not a shrink and would not treat you even if you paid me, but, for your own personal and mental stability, you should visit with one who might be able to determine the cause of your incongruities.

Good luck!

Amicus Veritas

 

[Stella_Omega]

'Fossil Fuels' for the main part, are not 'fossils' at all, rather swamp grass, like in the Louisiana Bogs, in which vegetable matter accumulates over time, is compressed with layers and layers and eventually change form into peat, coal and petroleum products.

It didn't stop happening the moment you became aware of our fuel supplies.

It continues to this very day and will continue forever.

And how long did it take those swamp grasses to turn into the fuel we are now using?
Millions of years.

And how fast are we using it up?
That which took millions of years to produce has been depleted in one hundred.

It's not as if there are oil reserves that are, so to speak, unripe but about to become usable for us in the next ten or so years. Oil reserves that are relatively "younger," are simply lower in quality, and we've tapped and used them up at the same time.

It could keep happening, if we had kept our hands off of the younger oil fields. But we have destroyed those along with every other source of oil we can get our hands on.

Furthermore, all that precious fuel is slowly being subducted by tectonic plate action and will be recycled in the next millions years whether you like it or not.

Umm... Okay, if you say so.

What???

 

[MzDeviancy]

What do you tell them on those conservative boards you also troll?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I'm guessing on those he's a card carrying member of Green Peace

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm guessing on those he's a card carrying member of Green Peace

So he's said;

...
Again, as a devil's advocate, (you should see the fur fly when I pretend to be a socialist or a modern liberal on other forums),...

ami

 

[MzDeviancy]

So he's said;

You know, some of the characters around here make me want to switch majors to Psych, then do my master's on people with dissociative identity disorder using the internet as an outlet for all their personalities. Ami and Scouries would provide enough fodder for a 50 page paper, easy.

 

[DeeZire]

Originally Posted by amicus
You should be intellectually ashamed of yourself, you can neither defend your own position by any rational means, ....

Uh... Ami, is your above quote in reference to you not paying taxes for 40 years, while at the same time benefiting from the services provided by those taxes? You do use a highway to get to your country place, right? Or do you never leave your country place, and never use electricity from the grid?

Oops! You're using the internet, a service that was originated by the government you refuse to pay taxes to. You're also using hospitals to provide your chemo, and for all we know, you could be getting your treatment free from Medicare.

If you're not intellectually ashamed of yourself, the only conclusion one can come to is that you are obviously intellectually challenged, which would help to explain the idiocy of this thread

 

[stephen55]

What would Ayn do............besides spout drivel...?

'Fossil Fuels' for the main part, are not 'fossils' at all, rather swamp grass, like in the Louisiana Bogs, in which vegetable matter accumulates over time, is compressed with layers and layers and eventually change form into peat, coal and petroleum products.

It didn't stop happening the moment you became aware of our fuel supplies.

It continues to this very day and will continue forever.

Furthermore, all that precious fuel is slowly being subducted by tectonic plate action and will be recycled in the next millions years whether you like it or not.

Ayn Rand had a particular distaste for science. She considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge and was the most important aspect of her pseudo-philosophy. Anything that science came up with from observation, deduction and induction was thus suspect. It wasn't the result of pure reason. I think ami's pseudo-philosophy of choice, Rand's Objectivism, explains the drivel he stated above.

Over relatively short lengths of time, bogs will form peat. Coal comes from plant material laid down during the The Carboniferous era, about 300 to 360 million years ago.

Petroleum comes from kerogen, a mixture of organic chemical compounds that make up a portion of the organic matter in sedimentary rocks. The main source of kerogen is algae. It was laid down 300 to 400 million years ago from oceanic algae of the time, and incorporated into sedimentary rock. Through increasing pressure and temperature it was converted to petroleum, the process being over by 50 to 100 million years ago.

So, according to petroleum geologists, coal, gas and oil are fossil fuels. Once they're gone, they're gone. There will never be another Carboniferous era. The life forms in the oceans of today are totally different from those of 400 million years ago. I suppose that if we all stop burning or using fossil fuels today and wait for another 400 million years, it's possible that there might actually be some more of the stuff. I won't make a firm prediction because my See Four Hundred Million Years Into The Future Crystal Ball is out for repairs.

A small number of geologists adhere to the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis and maintain that hydrocarbons of purely inorganic origin exist within Earth's interior. Perhaps ami is pinning his ideas on these types. As for all this non-fossil fossil fuel being recycled by subduction of plate tectonics and reappearing in a million years...sounds like wishful thinking to me. It also sounds like moronicity of the highest degree. Oops...make that Intelligent Moronicity. It's right up there with Intelligent Design.

 

[TxRad]

As someone who has worked with recovering fossil fuels everyday for the last 38 years, I'd like to say that Ami has no idea what he is talking about. If fossil fuels are replenishing themselves then why are we having to drill deeper and deer to find new deposits.

Speaking of new deposits, there are none left in the US of A. Every bit of Oil in this country, on land and off shore has been found and mapped. Small amounts off shore along the Atlantic and pacific coasts and off Florida have not been tapped. Those and some areas of the national forests are all that remain. We are to the point of recovering shale gas as all major deposits of natural gas have been drilled.

Wells in the early part of the 20th century were drilled above 3000 feet. A shallow well today is 12 to 15 thousand feet.

The average well today cost over 3 million dollars to drill. This does not include and production or pipeline costs.

The oil and gas we use today was created 300 million years ago in shallow seas. If you're waiting for that gas and oil in the bogs of south Louisiana, don't hold your breath. Most of it will bleed off into the atmosphere long before it can pocket. Swamp gas isn't going to power anything bigger than a small fan. There just isn't enough of it. Adding a muzzle and a butt plug to cows would make a hell of a lot more gas.

Any oil or gas that is anywhere near a subducted plate will be vaporized as it passes under the lava so forget about it, it's gone. period.

I don't know where you get your facts but you better find some better reading material. What you are reading now isn't fit for bathroom material.

 

[Handley_Page]

~~~

The entire Universe is founded on absolutes; a thing either is or it is not.

Amicus Veritas

Erm. . . Excuse me, but didn't Heisenberg have something to say about that ?
Come to think of it, Schroedinger had a few thoughts too.

But perhaps I'm getting mixed up.

 

[trysail]

As someone who has worked with recovering fossil fuels everyday for the last 38 years, I'd like to say that Ami has no idea what he is talking about. If fossil fuels are replenishing themselves then why are we having to drill deeper and deer to find new deposits.

Speaking of new deposits, there are none left in the US of A. Every bit of Oil in this country, on land and off shore has been found and mapped. Small amounts off shore along the Atlantic and pacific coasts and off Florida have not been tapped. Those and some areas of the national forests are all that remain. We are to the point of recovering shale gas as all major deposits of natural gas have been drilled.

Wells in the early part of the 20th century were drilled above 3000 feet. A shallow well today is 12 to 15 thousand feet.

The average well today cost over 3 million dollars to drill. This does not include and production or pipeline costs...

I don't dispute much of what you say. King Hubbert's prediction has, more or less, been borne out.

Nevertheless, I have to ask ( 'cause I'm curious to see your response ): how 'bout Devon/Chevron's Lower Tertiary in the GOM? ... and Kaskida? ... and Thunder Horse? ... and ANWR? ... and the Beaufort? ... and the Chukchi?

Are there sub-salt plays ( analogous to Brazil's offshore discoveries )?