Alternate Sources of Energy - Page 2

[jasimp]

I was watching Dirty Jobs on Discovery the other day and saw one where this dairy farmer used his cows crap to heat his home. He added some sort of microbe to it. They would "burp' after eating it and he would collect the gas and burn it to heat his house and barn.

[MidiMagic]

He tried his best :P
But seriously Everyone could do more to help 'Save' the planet. Recycle more, compost every little strand of waste cooking that isn't meat, etc. But it is all voluntary at the moment, we are not forced to recycle and reuse everything, why can't we be like the Germans for once, they have brilliant recycling and reusing of items facilities at the end of streets, and they had that years ago, so why can't we have the same? It's like the USA and the UK governments don't want us to 'save' the planet! They just want us to spend more on fuel (especially in UK) so the PM gets more taxes from us poor citizens, to spend on his luxury Jet Plane to get from place to place.

Because we overthrew Hitler to get rid of that mentality.

Anyone who wants government to force us to obey the religion of environmentalism is going to be treated like Hitler by the rest of us. This is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the environmentalist dictator.

You don't even have any solid proof that anything is wrong, other than the blather spewed by Al Gore and his bad science. I want to see REAL science as proof, not he bad stuff we hear today.

I encourage everyone to find alternate sources of energy. But the fears of a bunch of crybabies are not sufficient to require the force of government.

[Ezzaral]

Because we overthrew Hitler to get rid of that mentality.

Anyone who wants government to force us to obey the religion of environmentalism is going to be treated like Hitler by the rest of us. This is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the environmentalist dictator.

You don't even have any solid proof that anything is wrong, other than the blather spewed by Al Gore and his bad science. I want to see REAL science as proof, not he bad stuff we hear today.

I encourage everyone to find alternate sources of energy. But the fears of a bunch of crybabies are not sufficient to require the force of government.

Are you really so small-minded to associate everything German with the policies of Hitler? I suppose it's convenient for you, since you love to demonize anything at all that has to do with environmental responsibility - and I mean responsibility, not zealotry. Limiting the crap that we dump into the air, water, and land and reusing what materials we can is not some evil leftist conspiracy. If you can't see any effect of pollution at all then you must live in your closet.

Buying "Carbon credits" and such is pretty stupid in my opinion, but making some effort to be conscious of and lessen the degree to which we completely trash the planet we are stuck with is just common sense. Do you eliminate bodily waste all throughout your house and then move when you feel it's too soiled to live in? Are you against sewage treatment plants as well? Think we ought to just run it all off into the lake to reduce your taxes?

Your selfish stupidity is just plain offensive. If you're too damn lazy to recycle something, fine, just keep chucking all your personal garbage into the landfill that you don't have to look at, but just keep your whining about those who don't want live like that to yourself.

Also, denying any science that says we are doing anything bad at all to our current environment is deliberate ignorance. Gore might conflate his numbers and wave his arms more than the consensus would justify, but the number of "real scientists" (as you would put it) that deny we're doing any harm whatsoever is rapidly dwindling to insignificance. Even good ol' George Dubya, the grand ostrich himself, is no longer denying the consensus that we're making a mess of the place. Pull your head out, Midi. You don't have to swallow the Gore pill and join Greenpeace to admit that pollution is a real thing, we're the ones doing it, and maybe we should be a little smarter about lessening it where feasible.

[EnderX]

Are you really so small-minded to associate everything German with the policies of Hitler? I suppose it's convenient for you, since you love to demonize anything at all that has to do with environmental responsibility - and I mean responsibility, not zealotry. Limiting the crap that we dump into the air, water, and land and reusing what materials we can is not some evil leftist conspiracy. If you can't see any effect of pollution at all then you must live in your closet.

He's not making the German==Hitler association. I think you did that, reading it into his writing. MidiMagic is making the Mandatory_Massive_Governmental_Intrusion==Hitler argument, from what I read of his post.

Buying "Carbon credits" and such is pretty stupid in my opinion, but making some effort to be conscious of and lessen the degree to which we completely trash the planet we are stuck with is just common sense. Do you eliminate bodily waste all throughout your house and then move when you feel it's too soiled to live in? Are you against sewage treatment plants as well? Think we ought to just run it all off into the lake to reduce your taxes?

Your selfish stupidity is just plain offensive. If you're too damn lazy to recycle something, fine, just keep chucking all your personal garbage into the landfill that you don't have to look at, but just keep your whining about those who don't want live like that to yourself.

Whereas he (and others like him) must listen to the whining of those who disagree without saying anything about it? Sounds like a double standard to me. If the environmentalists can whine about those who don't support them, I see no reason the non-environmentalists shouldn't be allowed to whine as well.

Also, denying any science that says we are doing anything bad at all to our current environment is deliberate ignorance. Gore might conflate his numbers and wave his arms more than the consensus would justify, but the number of "real scientists" (as you would put it) that deny we're doing any harm whatsoever is rapidly dwindling to insignificance. Even good ol' George Dubya, the grand ostrich himself, is no longer denying the consensus that we're making a mess of the place. Pull your head out, Midi. You don't have to swallow the Gore pill and join Greenpeace to admit that pollution is a real thing, we're the ones doing it, and maybe we should be a little smarter about lessening it where feasible.

Okay, first item: Your introductory sentence in that paragraph is a strawman argument. Midimagic hasn't said that he is, quote 'denying any science that says we are doing anything bad at all to our current environment', he's stated that he doesn't agree with the most visible and vocal subset of the environmental movement. Considering that they also appear to be the most extreme arm of the environmental movement, this is not surprising. That you have to recast your argument in this manner would seem to indicate that you cannot directly oppose Midimagic's stance.

Second item: 'but the number of "real scientists" (as you would put it) that deny we're doing any harm whatsoever is rapidly dwindling to insignificance'. Or, in other words, anyone who disagrees with the consensus is generally repudiated as not being a 'real scientist'. It's happened elsewhere in science, and while the scientific process is self-correcting on errors, from what I've seen allowing 'consensus' to drive the issue takes it out of the realm of science and into the realm of ideology.

Third item: 'You don't have to swallow the Gore pill and join Greenpeace to admit that pollution is a real thing, we're the ones doing it, and maybe we should be a little smarter about lessening it where feasible.' Please point out to me where Midimagic has stated anything even remotely resembling the point you are countering here. As with your opening sentence, this one appears to be nothing more than a strawman argument against Midimagic's stance.

[Ezzaral]

He's not making the German==Hitler association. I think you did that, reading it into his writing. MidiMagic is making the Mandatory_Massive_Governmental_Intrusion==Hitler argument, from what I read of his post.

Hitler is by no means the only ruler who imposed the will of the government on the people. He is specifically using Hitler to maximize the emotional effect of his statement and I believe he seized on it because Germany's program was mentioned.

Whereas he (and others like him) must listen to the whining of those who disagree without saying anything about it? Sounds like a double standard to me. If the environmentalists can whine about those who don't support them, I see no reason the non-environmentalists shouldn't be allowed to whine as well.

Granted. I concede equal opportunity whining should be allowed.

Okay, first item: Your introductory sentence in that paragraph is a strawman argument. Midimagic hasn't said that he is, quote 'denying any science that says we are doing anything bad at all to our current environment', he's stated that he doesn't agree with the most visible and vocal subset of the environmental movement. Considering that they also appear to be the most extreme arm of the environmental movement, this is not surprising. That you have to recast your argument in this manner would seem to indicate that you cannot directly oppose Midimagic's stance.

Second item: 'but the number of "real scientists" (as you would put it) that deny we're doing any harm whatsoever is rapidly dwindling to insignificance'. Or, in other words, anyone who disagrees with the consensus is generally repudiated as not being a 'real scientist'. It's happened elsewhere in science, and while the scientific process is self-correcting on errors, from what I've seen allowing 'consensus' to drive the issue takes it out of the realm of science and into the realm of ideology.

Third item: 'You don't have to swallow the Gore pill and join Greenpeace to admit that pollution is a real thing, we're the ones doing it, and maybe we should be a little smarter about lessening it where feasible.' Please point out to me where Midimagic has stated anything even remotely resembling the point you are countering here. As with your opening sentence, this one appears to be nothing more than a strawman argument against Midimagic's stance.

Midi specifically said

You don't even have any solid proof that anything is wrong, other than the blather spewed by Al Gore and his bad science. I want to see REAL science as proof, not he bad stuff we hear today.

He claims that there is no solid proof other than what Gore claims and then says that he wants "REAL science, not the bad stuff". There is no strawman - he is completely overlooking the scientific consensus as non-existent. The fact is, there is a wealth of science on the matter that supports various degrees of climatic impact and he chooses to write it off as "the bad stuff". Nowhere do I claim that scientists who refute this are not real scientists. I only mention that they are dwindling to a minority. Their stance may in fact be wholly correct and the growing consensus might be absolutely wrong, but to claim that there is no evidence beyond "Gore's blather" is being willfully ignorant of the current state of science on this. That is the problem I have with Midi's stance.

[EnderX]

Midi specifically said He claims that there is no solid proof other than what Gore claims and then says that he wants "REAL science, not the bad stuff". There is no strawman - he is completely overlooking the scientific consensus as non-existent. The fact is, there is a wealth of science on the matter that supports various degrees of climatic impact and he chooses to write it off as "the bad stuff". Nowhere do I claim that scientists who refute this are not real scientists. I only mention that they are dwindling to a minority. Their stance may in fact be wholly correct and the growing consensus might be absolutely wrong, but to claim that there is no evidence beyond "Gore's blather" is being willfully ignorant of the current state of science on this. That is the problem I have with Midi's stance.

Then prove him wrong by providing the evidence. Factual evidence of historical environmental data, not sound bites from person A in favor of the movement, nor weblog rants from person B opposed to it. If the evidence does exist, and the data is sound, then provided it and show everyone that Midimagic is incorrect.

[Ezzaral]

Then prove him wrong by providing the evidence. Factual evidence of historical environmental data, not sound bites from person A in favor of the movement, nor weblog rants from person B opposed to it. If the evidence does exist, and the data is sound, then provided it and show everyone that Midimagic is incorrect.

I have posted links to this info before, but really the whole debate over climate science is just getting tired and I'm just about done even remarking on it. Those who want to ignore the current state of the science are just welcome to do so. It's not my crusade, but it really just amazes me that some still think climate science is one of two distinct camps: all doomsday Gore scenarios or "everythings fine, nothing to see here, move along".

Ars Technica assembled background reading, see the Climate section:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/770002407831/m/841006407831

Also:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

[Ene Uran]

Wow, the original funny post about burning bodily winds as possible alternate energy has turned into left and right wing issues.

Looks like our world is simply a tripartition:
1 liberal left (10%)
2 don't give a hoot (80%)
3 righteous right (10%)

[Ezzaral]

Wow, the original funny post about burning bodily winds as possible alternate energy has turned into left and right wing issues.

Looks like our world is simply a tripartition:
1 liberal left (10%)
2 don't give a hoot (80%)
3 righteous right (10%)

More like:
2 Give "hoot"s to varying degrees on varying issues that cannot be reduced to simplistic left/right characterizations used by those who only wish to marginalize any opposition to their narrowly defined view on a subject.

[sneekula]

To be realistic, more like a bell shaped curve with the "don't give a hoot" folks in the middle.