Archy1221
Well-known member
Shouldn’t your statement be a reason for all the PR conversations to just move to the shed??
Stupid sh#t people have posted
- Thread starter JJ Husker
- Start date
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
Our Founding Fathers created The Shed to grant us the freedom to call people a f#&%ing idiot if they were being a f#&%ing idiot, while protecting the sensibilities of the women and children who stayed in the parlor.
Again, why do you hate America?
Enhance
Administrator
In my company, any time we have a goal or a problem that needs to be fixed, we don't really debate and bicker over timelines. We debate over what the issue is, why it's an issue, and what we're going to do to address the issue.
Personally, I don't think there's any way to flip our fossil fuel dependency in the next 12-15 years, but it does seem a tad myopic to focus so much discussion and angst on how long it's going to take. It's a KPI worth setting a goal on but not necessarily one to get lost in. How we get there is the biggest discussion. The fact that a timeline does seem to be such a point of contention among so many conservatives heavily suggests that the timeline isn't really the issue; at least, it's not the real issue.
There's a lot of power and wealth in fossil fuels, and from what I've read, the vast majority of fossil fuels political funding is going into GOP coffers. So there's obviously a financial element to all this that it is mostly slanted in favor of conservatives (which helps explain why the loudest boo birds are conservatives). I've also been seeing some polls in recent years that suggest younger conservatives are generally much more on board with renewable energy discussions... it's the Gen X/Boomer conservatives (where most of the power/wealth is right now in that group) that are holding it back and in some cases even pushing for fossil fuels expansion.
Personally, I don't think there's any way to flip our fossil fuel dependency in the next 12-15 years, but it does seem a tad myopic to focus so much discussion and angst on how long it's going to take. It's a KPI worth setting a goal on but not necessarily one to get lost in. How we get there is the biggest discussion. The fact that a timeline does seem to be such a point of contention among so many conservatives heavily suggests that the timeline isn't really the issue; at least, it's not the real issue.
There's a lot of power and wealth in fossil fuels, and from what I've read, the vast majority of fossil fuels political funding is going into GOP coffers. So there's obviously a financial element to all this that it is mostly slanted in favor of conservatives (which helps explain why the loudest boo birds are conservatives). I've also been seeing some polls in recent years that suggest younger conservatives are generally much more on board with renewable energy discussions... it's the Gen X/Boomer conservatives (where most of the power/wealth is right now in that group) that are holding it back and in some cases even pushing for fossil fuels expansion.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver
Active member
Solar and wind cost WAY less than coal or nuclear. Only natural gas combined cycle plants are competitive.
This is pretty good video that I've posted before about whether transitioning to 100% renewables by 2030 is possible and how it would come with a tremendous amount of surplus energy:
Lorewarn
Active member
What would be an example data point or trend that would make you say, "Ok, this time the predictions were accurate"?
Born N Bled Red
Active member
God dang it. Orville and Wilber first flew their thier kite just 48 years ago. We sure as s#!t ain't getting to the moon in 8 years. Trying to go from flying in a kit to the moon in 8 years is crazy talk.
- Definately not wht JFK said on May 25, 1961.
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
Yeah, it would have to be something crazy dramatic, like raging wildfires, unprecedented heat waves, collapsing glaciers, and crippling droughts.
Oh. Wait.
JJ Husker
Donor
Thank God nothing like that has happened yet. If those things were happening, it would make it appear as if the scientists were correct and Archy was willfully ignoring the signs and we all know that isn’t what’s going on. I mean if that was happening already who in their right mind would continually call it alarmist?
Archy1221
Well-known member
I know right! It’s almost like glaciers haven’t contracted and expanded during the course of the Earths existence. Or that wildfires haven’t burned forests before (can’t believe that’s a new thing). And the heatwaves. Why are these people move South? One would think the upper Midwest would be booming with millions and millions of new residents from FL, TX, AZ because it’s so hot that we won’t be able to survive.
I’m just hoping KS doesn’t turn back into an ocean like it once was (damn humans!)
knapplc
Well-known member
Archy1221
Well-known member
1). I guess we better get that damn wall finished.
2). All those folks moving from the upper Midwest to the south must be complete idiots. Their property value is about to skyrocket according to your paper.
Enhance
Administrator
So someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the science at this point was majority agreed upon that climate change is happening at a significantly more rapid pace than any point in documented history (as far as scientists are able to understand) and that this is largely attributed to human pollution like CO2 emissions?
Obviously oceans rise, fall. Glaciers melt. We know that climate change has happened like this probably hundreds of times in the Earth's history. But isn't the real issue that it's happening incredibly faster than before?
Obviously oceans rise, fall. Glaciers melt. We know that climate change has happened like this probably hundreds of times in the Earth's history. But isn't the real issue that it's happening incredibly faster than before?
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker
Donor
JJ Husker
Donor
Archy will be here shortly to “correct you” with anecdotal migration patterns of Midwesterners moving south. :lol: :lol: :lol: