Climate Change

I am more than willing to debate the subject, I don't see myself as 'superior'.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

And again its not some 'conspiracy theory'. There aren't 'secret meetings' or of that crap from the movies, its just a straight up Communist Revolution. I have started a new thread "Red Rules" for that subject. They aren't plotting behind the scenes or anything like that, people who hold Communist views are simply influencing government (and the people through federal schools) in a bad direction

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I live in near wind farms and know many of the people involved in operating them. When the wind isn't blowing they have to turn the props to keep them functioning properly, which ends up using more power than they create. And I don't care if some scientist that's never actually seen a wind-turbine says otherwise.

So... If they can disprove you, you won't believe them anyway?

...

The turbines, AFAIK, only have to be kept working during (very) cold weather. This is to prevent icing-up and the ensuing damage.

Until 'green-energy' becomes more efficient, I'll stick to petroleum and nuclear (And hydro if the left wouldn't f___ them up trying to save the fish (that the dam workers say can easily survive the turbines unaffected)) Doesn't mean I don't want them to research green energy, I just don't think it is practical enough to implement yet.

Petroleum is going to, barring a massive discovery of more crude oil, run out in the immediate future. So is coal. Unless we prepare, we will be ♥♥♥♥ed. This is inarguable.

As for Nuclear, I can't fault you there. The fuel (Uranium, Plutonium) can be found in abundance on this planet and, importantly, asteroids. An effective disposal system should be upcoming in the next few decades.

I haven't read the book. And just because I am not ignorant of the obvious drift toward communism doesn't mean I am a conspiracy theorist. It's not a 'conspiracy' Its the result of socialist influence

It IS conspiracy, plain and simple. Creating a global crisis in order to stay in/obtain power is jut as conspiratorial as blowing up the twin towers to start a war.

Note that just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't necessarily make it untrue. I'm not saying that the above theories ARE true, because they're self-evident bull♥♥♥♥, just trying to get you to accept that that that was a conspiracy theory.

personal attacks aren't productive to any debate.

Agreed. Your Prime Ministerliness, we don't need to resort to that sort of thing here.

Although I would never stand for something like democracy in which coercive means can be used to maintain power. I would much rather see a democratic republic (like we used to have in the US), or a libertarian government.

Coercive means will always be used to main/obtain power. Welcome to human nature, enjoy your stay. Pretty ♥♥♥♥ty isn't it?

And are you denying that Communists have infiltrated governments for revolution or that governments have taken power through artificial crisis?

Communist revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adolf Hitler's rise to power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because we are the United States doesn't mean we are immune to wars and revolutions and all the things that every country (especially hated ones like the US) must face.

I'm not even going to bother here, Maggie's covered it.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I live in near wind farms and know many of the people involved in operating them. When the wind isn't blowing they have to turn the props to keep them functioning properly, which ends up using more power than they create. And I don't care if some scientist that's never actually seen a wind-turbine says otherwise

I doubt they turn manually when there's no wind. What's your source?

Until 'green-energy' becomes more efficient, I'll stick to petroleum and nuclear (And hydro if the left wouldn't f___ them up trying to save the fish (that the dam workers say can easily survive the turbines unaffected)) Doesn't mean I don't want them to research green energy, I just don't think it is practical enough to implement yet

The problem is that we're running out of petroleum. Once we start running out of it, gas prices will soar, and countries will become more desperate to obtain the last barrels. This will cause unneeded conflicts that could have been avoided completely by the transition to renewable energy.

Nuclear energy, while incredibly safe, creates unwanted radioactive nuclear waste that takes tens of thousands of years to decay. In order to keep the community safe, this material must be stored in locations far from civilization in case of a meltdown.

The reason the "left" care so much about fish is because of the ecosystem surrounding the dammed river. It's grade-school biology: say certain species of wildlife obtain their food from the fish of the river. When that chain is broken, they will be forced to find food elsewhere, creating a chain reaction decimating the area. The food chain is not a liberal hoax.

I haven't read the book. And just because I am not ignorant of the obvious drift toward communism doesn't mean I am a conspiracy theorist. It's not a 'conspiracy' Its the result of socialist influence

We are about as close to communism as the USSR was to lassiez-faire capitalism during the 1950's. Let me give you the synopsis of 1984: three massive superstates, Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia, are locked in perpetual war. In all three countries, the freedoms you know today do not exist, and all power is designated to upper 15% of the population (known as "The Party") while the other 85% consists of the proletariat or "proles". Orwell's society and your definition of communism are not communism at all; it is totalitarian dictatorship.

personal attacks aren't productive to any debate. Although I would never stand for something like democracy in which coercive means can be used to maintain power. I would much rather see a democratic republic (like we used to have in the US), or a libertarian government

If you believe that the United States is an example of a pure democratic republic free from coercive politicians, the only thing I can tell you is that you are incredibly ignorant.

And are you denying that Communists have infiltrated governments for revolution or that governments have taken power through artificial crisis?

Communist revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adolf Hitler's rise to power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because we are the United States doesn't mean we are immune to wars and revolutions and all the things that every country (especially hated ones like the US) must face

Hitler was not communist, nor was he a socialist. Using reductio ad Hitlerum as an attempt to discredit socialism only degrades your post to hysteric anti-leftst blabber.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I am more than willing to debate the subject, I don't see myself as 'superior'.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

And again its not some 'conspiracy theory'. There aren't 'secret meetings' or of that crap from the movies, its just a straight up Communist Revolution. I have started a new thread "Red Rules" for that subject. They aren't plotting behind the scenes or anything like that, people who hold Communist views are simply influencing government (and the people through federal schools) in a bad direction

Left4Cuccos' point was that your arguments hinge on a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions you've made about the other side, some of which actually apply to your position.

Ah, the irony: A claims B is being manipulated, when the way that A converses with B evidences A's manipulation by a third party (or, equally as likely in this case, non-conscious social pressures).

I doubt they turn manually when there's no wind. What's your source?

I live in near wind farms and know many of the people involved in operating them

And also I have seen them turning when there was no wind. you can tell because they don't turn them all at once, one will be spinning while another next to it is still.

Orwell's society and your definition of communism are not communism at all; it is totalitarian dictatorship.

I am not talking about totalitarianism, I am talking about communism, plain and simple. I don't agree with Communism in any form, but I do know there are forms of communism which aren't dictatorships

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

And also I have seen them turning when there was no wind. you can tell because they don't turn them all at once, one will be spinning while another next to it is still.


I am not talking about totalitarianism, I am talking about communism, plain and simple. I don't agree with Communism in any form, but I do know there are forms of communism which aren't dictatorships

Do you know what the wind patterns are like a few thousand feet above your head? Either way you are using circumstantial evidence to support your case and have not provided a reason for why we should believe you.

There are forms of communism that aren't totalitarian but I can't think of a national government current or former that would fall under that. The Soviets and North Koreans are/were very much a totalitarian state masquerading under the banner of communism.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

And also I have seen them turning when there was no wind. you can tell because they don't turn them all at once, one will be spinning while another next to it is still.

Have you considered for a moment that a windmill is not spinning for a practical reason, such as maintenance?

Here's a newsletter explaining the process in detail: Small Wind Turbine Basics: Part 2

I am not talking about totalitarianism, I am talking about communism, plain and simple. I don't agree with Communism in any form, but I do know there are forms of communism which aren't dictatorships

In your posts, however, you seem to be equating totalitarianism with communism, such as when you said that governments are trying to create problems in order to obtain more power to "fix" them and your relation between Adolf Hitler's Nazi ideals and the so-called "communist revolution".

Do you know what the wind patterns are like a few thousand feet above your head? Either way you are using circumstantial evidence to support your case and have not provided a reason for why we should believe you.

That is simply supplemental to my main point; I know people who work on them and they ALL say that they turn them when it isn't windy to prevent mechanical problems

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

That is simply supplemental to my main point; I know people who work on them and they ALL say that they turn them when it isn't windy to prevent mechanical problems

I don't get how that means there's a vast conspiracy. Some things need constant work or they might break, it's common sense.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

That is simply supplemental to my main point; I know people who work on them and they ALL say that they turn them when it isn't windy to prevent mechanical problems

Just to clarify...

You don't mean by hand, do you?

I don't get how that means there's a vast conspiracy. Some things need constant work or they might break, it's common sense.

What? how is that related to anything I have said? I said windmills are inefficient, not a conspiracy

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

And no it isn't by hand, they're huge. They have motors

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

What? how is that related to anything I have said? I said windmills are inefficient, not a conspiracy

Maybe I skipped over something when I skimmed this thread.

I was under the impression that you were saying windmills were built but served no practical purpose other than to provide evidence that we need green energy sources.

Either way I can't imagine they'd be used if they were inefficient.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

What? how is that related to anything I have said? I said windmills are inefficient, not a conspiracy

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

And no it isn't by hand, they're huge. They have motors

Thank god. I could have sworn I saw someone say that...

Anyway, as far as I can see they only need to be kept moving during extreme cold snaps. A Texan wind farm, for example, would hardly ever need to be artificially kept turning.

Would you mind providing a link to something about turning them under other circumstances?

Either way I can't imagine they'd be used if they were inefficient.

you underestimate our governments stupidity.

Before anyone goes off on me saying that the windmills are built by private companies, I am already aware. the government subsidizes them massively to make them profitable, otherwise businesses wouldn't build them.

And for all those who disregard what I have said, I will restate it; I am not opposed to green energy. I am opposed to implementing it at this point when it is not yet researched enough to be efficient

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

Would you mind providing a link to something about turning them under other circumstances?

My sources are firsthand, not the internet. And as for the cold, north-central Oregon is high desert. It doesn't often get cold, and they do it in the summer (although less often because the summer is pretty windy)

This came out today: Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds | Environment | guardian.co.uk

It's the final nail in the coffin, so to speak. They fought Galileo when he claimed the Earth revolved around the sun. They fought Darwin when he showed evidence for evolution. Now, they'll fight climate change. In the end, though, the truth will win out. As it always has.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

And for all those who disregard what I have said, I will restate it; I am not opposed to green energy. I am opposed to implementing it at this point when it is not yet researched enough to be efficient

Although I agree with this. Green energy is NOT ready for prime time. Nuclear is the answer, IMO.

It is impossible to say the Earth's avg. temp has increased in the past 250 years because 250 yeas ago we didn't have accurate thermometers or access to the entire world (to get a more accurate average). And even if it does make small changes like that it doesn't mean it can't cool down again.

We know the global climate as far back as hundreds of millions of years ago. They don't use thermometers to measure the temperature.

"Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 2.5F over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1.5 degrees over the most recent 50 years."

That is MUCH faster than it would be under natural climate change.

The existence of ice ages proves that it is also possible for the planet to cool down. whos to say it wont go back down again?

And curious, how did they measure the temperature 250 years ago?

It will go back, just not for millions of years. Climate change happens for a variety of reasons, usually due to a major event. Before humans, these events could include large asteroids hitting the Earth, the position of continents blocking the ocean currents, increased sunspot activity, etc. It doesn't happen suddenly, especially not at the rate we're observing.

We usually determine past tempature through measuring the molecules inside ice cores. Ice cores in the arctic are built upon by an annual snowfall, so by measuring their composition we can determine the climate at the time. More on that here: How are past temperatures determined from an ice core?: Scientific American

Although I'm not sure how they measured the temperature for that particular study. There are several valid methods. They do have the study available on their website for free, so I'll probably be reading that to understand their methods.