I guess there's an all time high of people who need to make up for having a small penis with a bigass truck.
Lenny, i find it interesting you admit subsidies on one hand and espouse free market 'supply and demand' as the reason for fuel efficient cars on the other . I certainly wish you were right, and that the free market was the driving force. Its not because of free market demand but government mandated mpg requirements that is the real driving force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg if anything, i agree with one thing. we really don't need opinions on facts. look at the data.
what's current is not what we need. we need improvement and evolution of better energy sources. generally speaking it's very easy to say well, the shit don't work, so i'm not going to bother. there's a thousand excuses for that.... no money, no resources, too complicated, ... whatever. that's not how you get to the next level. airtravel was impossible, even the current gasoline engine was feat of "genius" at one point, Edison didn't find the right solution for the light bulb overnight. it takes time and persistence. and we are getting better. global warming is happening because we as humans needs to stop being retarded and stop wasting billions on old technologies. building oil pipes and shit. c'mon in today's age that should be fucking embarrassing. global warming is a signal to start thinking and improving. if it's real or not it doesn't matter. but the current state of our energy sources hasn't evolved in a century or more. and phone has evolved from nothing to an amazing piece of technology. and yet i still fill up the car the same way my granpa did. we can do better.
Moore's law does not neccessarily carry over for energy technology. Technology becomes more effecient in its use of energy, but methods of producing and storing energy do not see exponential advancements in the same degree as transistor density. There is also a supply & demand aspect that plays into this. Consumer demand for energy consumption is rather invisible to the average user. Technology is as ubiquitous as ever and is far more hands on. Electricity and gas infrastructure is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Governments are the largest investors in energy infrastructure, so by proxy the average citizen (taxpayer) has no direct relationship with the costs of energy investment, just the price of kilowatt per hour as an end user. Anyways, I totally agree with what you are saying, I just wanted to mention that energy technology lags behind because of the demands and considerations of consumers (as well as the practicality and availability of crude oil and other 'outdated' energy sources). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law http://theemergingfuture.com/speed-technological-advancement.htm https://startpage.com/do/search?cmd=process_search&cat=web&query=moore%27s+law+for+batteries&language=english&no_sugg=1&ff=&abp=-1
supply and demand relies on consumer responsibility If the problems were more obvious and immediate, do you think there would be more demand for clean energy? What if ifs too late? -yuri
I'm not skeptical of humanity's contribution to greenhouse gasses or their potential for affecting climate change. I am sceptical of how both sides seem way too prone toward exaggerating that potential; one toward ignoring it completely while the other toward expanding it to doomsday scenarios. I'm also sceptical when this debate produces smoking guns that presumably end all future debate. Case in point. The recent NASA - NOAA report claiming that the global mean temperature (averaged across the entire earth) was warmer than any previous year. This report was seized upon by the press and portrayed as THE smoking gun to definitively shut the mouths of climate sceptics once and for all. Yet buried further in that report - and conveniently overlooked by the press - is the amazing statement that the scientists that did the statistical analysis were only 38% certain of their conclusion! And they wonder why there are sceptics... I've read lots of scientific papers in my day but I've yet to read one that admitted to that degree of uncertainty while at the same time being touted as scientific gospel. And then to publicly proclaim such as some sort of smoking gun/case closed/ end of debate kind of revelation just goes to show how desperate a great many people are to use and/or abuse anything at their disposal to prove themselves right and their adversaries wrong. It's fucking pathetic! And both sides play that same game to the point where, in order to evaluate the actual technicalities surrounding the modeling, trending evaluations, weightings, etc of historical data, one must pass through layer upon layer of warp factors and assumptions, both the obvious one as well those nasty hidden ones. And even then one is never certain to what degree these conclusive proclamations are based on objective analysis and how much are "convenient" data massaging (e.g. the East Anglian/ IPCC "hockey stick" fiasco, etc). Being only 38% sure that the data supports the conclusion that the earth was warmer in 2014 than any previous year is actually a surprising admission of the researchers' own uncertainty over that conclusion! But facts (like that 62% uncertainty) should never be allowed to get in the way of what politically partisan organizations hype as "truth".
In my opinion, it probably is too late for the most part. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to undo damage or prevent further damage from being done. "If the problems were more obvious and immediate, do you think there would be more demand for clean energy?" Yes, I do. That's why I think there is an increasing demand as more awareness is brought towards the issue.
It's silly to think we don't have a decent sized impact on the planet.. but with every issue, you'll always have people who over exaggerate and people who under exaggerate. Climate naturally and constantly goes through changes and we are in the midst of a change, we are just amplifying that change. Our nature comes from nature.. so I think any animal in our position would be doing the same sort of stuff, mass alteration of the planet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to combat the damage.. cause other said hypothetical animal in our position would also have those working at reversing the damage. Greenhouse gases, pollution, plastic oceans.. and we are coming up on the 6th known mass extinction on Earth and the majority of it is being caused by us. So we have a lot of work.. but over exaggerating does as much harm as under exaggerating.
agreed. but let's take tesla for example.. was it that hard to see that elon musk is onto something big there? instead of fighting him "oil-based-industry" and Detroit shoul've got behind. and by now we'd have as many if not more as gas cars, electric vehicles on the road ... with a serious investment the infrastructure would be changed drastically. is there no consumer demand? i believe there is, but because the oil industry is still competing with electric... you have a relatively high-entry point plus inconvenience due to lack of charging stations. so we have two problems that exponentially decreasing each year. if it's not tesla (although i'm sure they are not going away anytime soon) then another EV or a few bands will transform the market. this change is inevitable. you see, but BP cannot make 500 mill investment into electric. and what's going to happen to those that stick to the old? they will lose their profits. not this year but in 5 years... and giants like exonn and friends will either adapt or disappear like kodak (who refused to go digital), blockbuster (which refused to accept that netflix is the future), compaq, gm, etc.
I agree with you completely. Market demand is like a raging river that cannot be stoped or redirected. BTW, Kodak is still luckily producing film (and never 'refused to go digital', holding several patents for digital cameras, which the company eventually had to sell).
There is our free market. Yet, no one will be held accountable. That law does not represent the will of the people, it is clearly a corporate sponsored law. If that was the only bullshit law like that, I could find forgiveness. Does the corruption run so deep that we are complacent to this shit? We individuals feel powerless to change that, and by ones self, we probably are. We need unity. At some point the anger of the people will surface, and all the superficial division will be dissolved. Its only a matter of time IMO. I will say this though, creating a shitload more radioactive waste cannot be considered a good alternative to carbon emissions.
Coal 39% Natural Gas 27% Nuclear 19% Hydropower 7% Other Renewable 6% Biomass 1.48% Geothermal 0.41% Solar 0.23% Wind 4.13% Petroleum 1% Other Gases < 1% Coal and nuclear power are not intelligent alternatives, and I dont know enough about natural gas to comment on that.
If Tesla could "capture" energy from the atmosphere in 1907 with an antennae, why can't it be done again?
What we put in the sky also affects life in the ocean and our food, for example the salinity, and carbonic acid eating away at calcium carbonate in sea animals shells(protective layers). Global warming or not co2 emissions and projects to limit them should be made, shit I love seafood
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say its not a conspiracy. The reason being is that it is science. You can only hide the discovery so long before one of the many many many other brilliant scientists in the world realizes it. No. If Tesla realty had some miracle device, there would be no way to keep it a secret. Because its science. -yuri