A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious": That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president. This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him. .... If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue? |
|
|
|
^^^ How else would you render the lunar surface? Without a computer you'd have to use 1960's movie special effects. NASA destroyed that technology and they claim it would be a painful process to build it back again.
The way they did it was to go to the moon to film going to the moon, since that was the easiest and cheapest way to fake going to the moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw |
|
|
|
.............
............... And now go check when that one has been developed. A little CPU/ microcomputer history .. Why do you think someone would need a computer to go to the Moon? For what exact purposes? Please be specific. |
|
|
|
|
I certainly do have an interest in a floating country, or in someone that can command a country to float.
|
|
|
|
You brought up price and CO2, TECSHARE brought up efficiency. Which is fine, I was literally just trying to have a discussion. Jeez. As you are often fond of telling me, calm down. We are just having a discussion, you just don't like the direction it went. I am afraid you are just going to have to learn cope with that. Half convo, half 'lets bash TwitchySeal' party lol Was just pointing out my 'bouncing around' was just responding to you guys. Do you have any data that shows electric vehicles are ecologically worse or less efficient? Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do. The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you. Overall price is definitely an indicator. But I guess we could argue Gas is too high or electric too low and it won't stay that way? Seems likely electric cars are still coming down in price though. My comments weren't specifically directed at you. But think of the ridiculousness, someone buys an EV to be True Green and then other True Greens cause his coal fired power utility's prices to skyrocket. Like Obama promised. Germany shut down their coal fired power plants to be True Green, only to find themselves economically dependent on natural gas and a pipeline from Russia. And they shut down their nuclear plants, 8 already and the remaining 9 before long. If the results look quite silly, they are. An eighth grader can look at politicians' claims they will get a country "completely renewable" and look at the current state of affairs, the progress per year and report they are totally untrue. That's why I meant exactly what I said, "the pinnacle of the AGW circus is the training of people to be stupid, to think stupid and act stupid, and think they are wise, and wonderful. " |
|
|
|
good find. So it's fair to say that the 'downstream' energy costs are reflected in these prices.
I know you still have the issue of what's best described as "lifecycle energy costs" or "lifecycle emissions," or "lifecycle costs including disposal of Li batteries" etc. He is bouncing freely between co2 emissions, price, and actual energy efficiency. I find the concept of anthropogenic global warming to be nonsense and meaningless, but it takes many years for an electric vehicle to make up for the emissions created during the construction of the vehicle. The price (currently ) is in favor of EVs, but that could change any day as the market shifts. As far as energy efficiency he likes to point about the extraction and delivery cost of fossil fuels but also wants to ignore the immense amounts of energy required to mine the rare Earth elements required to build an EV, as well as the multitude of other disastrous environmental side effects of mining these types of minerals. All very true, but the pinnacle of the AGW circus is the training of people to be stupid, to think stupid and act stupid, and think they are wise, and wonderful. Where people once were taught the mechanisms of weather and climate, including the short, medium and long term oscillations and the reasons for them, now they are drilled with a mantra, a prescribed dogma, and questioning it is bad. Where there might have been serious discussion about electric cars versus gasoline, now the "good green option" is pre-decreed, regardless of whether the electric car where sited must run off a downstream coal combustion process. Where an offshore adversary or an enemy within the US wants to weaken us, they need only agitate and spend a few million to destroy or stall the issues (not building new nuclear power, the pipeline from Canada, fracking, offshore drilling, shutting down existing nuclear power, wasting money on windmills and solar farms) that if cleverly manipulated, directly lead to the US being economically dependent on oil from the Middle East, with all the consequences of that. |
|
|
|
Everyone knows that there is cyclic climate change on timescales that are orders of magnitude greater than the one we are talking about right now. It doesn't really matter what things were like that long ago. What matters most is whats happening, how it will affect us humans living today, and what we are going to do about it.
Bringing up the reliability of historic data is a red herring. It would be like, in the midst of the plague, bringing up the fact that people have always died from infections.
Poll Finds Most People Would Rather Be Annihilated By Giant Tidal Wave Than Continue To Be Lectured By Climate Change Activists https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-finds-most-people-would-rather-be-annihilated-by-giant-tidal-wave-than-continue-to-be-lectured-by-climate-change-activists |
|
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C.—House Democrats today announced a new plan to ensure Trump wins the White House again in 2020. "We hereby unveil these articles of impeachment, which clearly lay out the undeniable fact that we will not win the White House back next year," said Rep. Jerry Nadler. "We have found Trump guilty of absolutely nothing, but we already started this whole process and it would look bad to back out now, so here we are." "I declare here and now that Trump will be in the White House for at least another four years." Some questioned if this was the best strategy, but Democrats pointed out that with four more years of Trump, they will be able to generate far more outrage than if they took back the White House. "It's a lot more fun to be extremists and scream at the sky for years and years instead of proposing policies that most Americans support and actually win elections." https://babylonbee.com/news/house-dems-announce-trump-will-win-2020-election |
|
|
|
No we know with a great deal of certainty what the greenhouse effect is, how it works, and how humans are contributing to it. The real debate surrounding climate change is more about what our response should be or how we should react. There is no real debate about what is going on. Only red herrings from people like you on the internet.
Obiously you have not read the UN's technical reports. Or given your history of lying, this may just be another example. |
|
|
|
Hong kong protests are not a person, they are a political movement. Greta is a person. Also, they don't use political biases ....
There is no "they". There is just one individual that chooses, however he likes, the "person of the year." |
|
|
|
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. That is is basic chemistry, results of combustion. There are many other trace outputs, in IC engines these are nominal. With coal they can be quite a problem. So just the emissions of when the coal combusts in the power plant and the gas in the engine. That's just part of the equation, as I've already pointed out. I think you're underestimating how much energy it takes to transfer the potential energy from the coal and crude oil in the ground to a car. It's not simple. Those energies are nicely summarized in a thing called "price."  good find. So it's fair to say that the 'downstream' energy costs are reflected in these prices. I know you still have the issue of what's best described as "lifecycle energy costs" or "lifecycle emissions," or "lifecycle costs including disposal of Li batteries" etc. |
|
|
|
Another misguided kid who has been manipulated by the politically correct educational system. She is a prime example of why the voting age should be increased and not lowered. Given that the brain doesn't finish (significant) developments until your 20s, this is an agreeable opinion. So... she's been smoking some of that really good stuff? |
|
|
|
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. That is is basic chemistry, results of combustion. There are many other trace outputs, in IC engines these are nominal. With coal they can be quite a problem. So just the emissions of when the coal combusts in the power plant and the gas in the engine. That's just part of the equation, as I've already pointed out. I think you're underestimating how much energy it takes to transfer the potential energy from the coal and crude oil in the ground to a car. It's not simple. Those energies are nicely summarized in a thing called "price." |
|
|
|
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. That is is basic chemistry, results of combustion. There are many other trace outputs, in IC engines these are nominal. With coal they can be quite a problem. Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat: C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg) S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg) 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg) https://marcepinc.com/blog/coal-combustion-process-and-its-productsGasoline is usually approximated as being made up of only octane, whose chemical formula is C8H18, hence ... C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O some researchers suggest that a regional approach to clean vehicle standards makes more sense than national standards that effectively require electric cars across the board. Minnesota could go for hybrids and California could go for electric vehicles. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/But he gets it wrong. CA is clean only in CA's imagination. Consider the giant coal power plants in southern Nevada that were built primarily to supply power to CA... |
|
|
|
I agree we can't observe the total emissions, it's important to view it per capita.
We can't expect countries with a billion people to have the same emissions as countries with a 100 million.
Still, however, I don't see how this temperature rise correlates with any human activity.
The ice mass was significanlty lesser thousands of years ago then it is now.
Nasa does a pretty good job of breaking down what's going on with climate change... No, they don't. They know as little as anyone else. All the CERTAINTIES are in the minds of TRUE BELIEVERS. Well one thing's sure now. That stunt of hers, or whoever placed here in that position, got her Time's person of the year award. That should get her and the people behind her more attention for what they're advocating, which in should be climate change. Though there's a lot of things I'd prefer that she be doing at that age than going up against adults and big corporations. Hands down for the piercing eyes that looked really determined, though. I learned an interesting fact today. The Time Person of the Year is decided by One Person. |
|
|
|
...
Indeed. Not Antarctica but at least the Sahara. People complaining overpopulation blah, blah, blah but then they'd move to a completely empty unlivable planet having to bring precious resources from Earth. Make the Sahara green, that should be enough to feed everyone.
9/10 of the land in Australia is empty, add that to the list. While we're looking at the matter, note that of these three pretty horrible places, the hotter ones are way, way better than the colder one... |
|
|
|
...
Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.
The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. If your power plant is coal fired electric is worse. first ask the right question... I meant how much is produced in total, from taking it out of the ground to when it make your wheels turn not just when it combusts. There are a ton of factors to consider. Overall though coal isn't even the biggest generator of electricity anymore. Natural Gas produces 50-60% less CO2 than coal. I don't think Renewable or Nuclear produce very much at all. Total electricity produced in America: Natural gas 35.2% Coal 27.5% Renewables 16.9% Go back and look at my comment. It says exactly this. "If your original source of energy is coal, an electric car is inferior to a gasoline car." Nothing complicated about it. Very simple. I gave the reasons. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. It says exactly this. "If your original source of energy is coal, an electric car is inferior to a gasoline car." Nothing complicated about it. Very simple. I gave the reasons. Now, regarding your concern about total life cycle carbon emissions versus usage carbon emissions for the electric versus gasoline vehicle. I see your point. "Apply the Schiff Method." There should be a thorough investigation of the total life cycle energy emissions problem for the gasoline car. Adequate investigations and careful selection of evidence, coupled with careful deletion of evidence, should enable reaching the desired conclusion, that the gasoline car is inferior to the electric car. We appreciate your help in urging us to investigate very thoroughly, when the pre-ordained conclusion is not immediately reached, and stopping all investigation, when some promoted issue at first appearances indicates the pre-ordained conclusion is evident. If you need help, our trusted comrades will be happy to help. Although they may not be the brightest tools in the shed, they do have experience with the Adam Schiff method. Peter Struck himself, the grand master of bias in method, is looking for a job, and Linda Paige is also available. Just think, "What conclusion do I want to shape?" for starters. |
|
|
|
...
Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.
The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. If your power plant is coal fired electric is worse. first ask the right question... I meant how much is produced in total, from taking it out of the ground to when it make your wheels turn not just when it combusts. There are a ton of factors to consider. Overall though coal isn't even the biggest generator of electricity anymore. Natural Gas produces 50-60% less CO2 than coal. I don't think Renewable or Nuclear produce very much at all. Total electricity produced in America: Natural gas 35.2% Coal 27.5% Renewables 16.9% Go back and look at my comment. It says exactly this. "If your original source of energy is coal, an electric car is inferior to a gasoline car." Nothing complicated about it. Very simple. I gave the reasons. You can now go and buy your fossil fueled car and feel good about it. |
|
|
|
Really? Cold enough to keep Co2 in snow form, and it's our twin sister?
Evidence of life? Nope.
Supportive environment? Peroxides in the dirt would kill most any living thing.
Try again...
Still Mars is considered the most likely candidate with current human technology, the other ones being one of the moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn... Overpopulation is becoming an inevitable and the predominant political problem on Earth. Much of what was considered a natural part of every day life (even simple things like grass fed meat, owning a piece of land, etc.) for our ancestors have already become great luxuries due to an exponentially increasing population and scarcity of limited resources here... So it's either Total World War 3 on Earth, or space colonization, and possibly both... So you can first colonize the Sahara Desert and Antarctica, either of which is 100000x easier than Mars. Let me know how that works out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
