Some Good News on Climate Change Maybe

Using CNN as a source of information is not something I recommend.  I could add a graphic, to illustrate, but memes annoy some people, so I won't.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Using CNN as a source of information is not something I recommend.  I could add a graphic, to illustrate, but memes annoy some people, so I won't.

Do it......

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Using CNN as a source of information is not something I recommend.  I could add a graphic, to illustrate, but memes annoy some people, so I won't.

This is endlessly amusing to me:

f6d40b2ac34f08f7bce9a5ea6a790aad2d07b83f46fecad5003d29b5910edf32.png

 

And for those of you choking on laughter about CNN's "Facts First" self-promotion:

20190214_135043.jpg.b3eb333df7b246bb6a12543f873cfcc7.jpg

 

And a bonus Public Service Announcement about Nutrition:

92e6ca396aa273062b15a28c44092b33e156d691cd7c38532835359c032875f6.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, I don't have much use for 'mainstream' media. It's isn't necessarily that it's inaccurate, it's simply that most of what it dwells on is immaterial. However, my definition of immateriality is probably at odds with a lot of people's viewpoints.

Then there's the equally vacuous rejoinders. Instead of pointing out a specific problem, there's simply graphics on what to do about 'mainstream bullshit', or an even more pointless ad from when, the 1930's, 1940's over something that has nothing to do with news media. Perhaps it's all loads of fun. Perhaps it simply illustrates that what passes for news in the US, or discussion about the news, is simply entertainment.

Generally if I see an error in a 'mainstream media' article, I challenge it on it's faults or merits. These are very specific, and often the arguments are novel. I spend my time rooting around in obscure nooks and crannies. I can generally track down sources when I'm asked to back up my assertions.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CNN link provided at the top is vague. One assertion I've been making for at least the last ten years is that solar power will overrun other energy sources pretty much like the PC simply wiped out the proprietary minicomputer industry, the 'HPs', 'DECs', 'Data Generals', etc. Even the 2030 date trotted out in the so-called Green New Deal is pessimistic - I would put the 100% renewable date closer to 2025. This is simply because people just don't understand how quickly (and thoroughly) a technology can be obsoleted, even on global terms.

One of my comments some time ago was that 'by the time politicians are out promising to 'save' the middle class, the middle class has been dead and gone for a generation'. If the US intended to 'save' the middle class, it would have had to do something in 1973, when the mid-70's recession started. This only had traction on the campaign trail starting with Gov. Dukakis in 1988. It was only the mid-1990's where white collar workers started fearing for the long term survival of their jobs.

The 2016 election was the point at which the 'mainstream' political parties were so lazy and so inbred that someone like Trump could mop up vast amounts of support. I personally hope Trump leaves office as soon as possible. However, I equally hope that both 'main stream' parties have learned their lessons.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSM is quite inaccurate, ALL THE TIME and willfully so.

The only thing that can be done about MSM BS requires consumers who demand more fact reporting, truth and less mindless, easily digestible(requiring no real thought or reason to form an independent or educated opinion) news which really amounts to entertainment.  MSM is the symptom, not the cause.  Supply and demand.  Memes, which I must admit I find rather amusing, fit into this paradigm and I hope @Tom Kirkman keeps them coming.  It’s kinda like fighting fire with fire.  Or treating someone snake-bit with anti-venom made from venom.  

The cause, well, that’s a whole other topic but let’s sum it quickly, regressive liberal ideology that needs mass quantities of ignorant and easily swayed zombies to secure, maintain and increase power and influence.  That’s why we have a whole generation that can tell you who won big brother house, who hooked up with who on the bachelor and what’s going on with the kardashians; but can’t identify who their congressmen are, who the speaker of the house or minority leader is or pick Iran out on a map.  

100% renewable by 2025.....  damn, if that’s a prediction I would respectfully request predictions on which companies are gonna break the technology capable of that mainstream because I want to sell everything I own, hell, maybe even borrow money to buy stock in those firms.  The payoff will likely be like that enjoyed by the first Apple stock purchasers who held it till they exploded.

Though I agree Sillary is an excellent example of in-bred political party thought, Trump is not.  The establishment dems wanted Sillary and apparently so did a damn lot of voters because she won the popular vote.  The republican establishment did not want Trump, the electoral college did and I’m told so did the Russians.  The American dream is still the all-time best seller.  Trump understood this, thus he is our (if you are an American) President.  

 

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TXPower said:

MSM is quite inaccurate, ALL THE TIME and willfully so.

The only thing that can be done about MSM BS requires consumers who demand more fact reporting, truth and less mindless, easily digestible(requiring no real thought or reason to form an independent or educated opinion) news which really amounts to entertainment.  MSM is the symptom, not the cause.  Supply and demand.  Memes, which I must admit I find rather amusing, fit into this paradigm and I hope @Tom Kirkman keeps them coming.  It’s kinda like fighting fire with fire.  Or treating someone snake-bit with anti-venom made from venom.  

The cause, well, that’s a whole other topic but let’s sum it quickly, regressive liberal ideology that needs mass quantities of ignorant and easily swayed zombies to secure, maintain and increase power and influence.  That’s why we have a whole generation that can tell you who won big brother house, who hooked up with who on the bachelor and what’s going on with the kardashians; but can’t identify who their congressmen are, who the speaker of the house or minority leader is or pick Iran out on a map.  

100% renewable by 2025.....  damn, if that’s a prediction I would respectfully request predictions on which companies are gonna break the technology capable of that mainstream because I want to sell everything I own, hell, maybe even borrow money to buy stock in those firms.  The payoff will likely be like that enjoyed by the first Apple stock purchasers who held it till they exploded.

Though I agree Sillary is an excellent example of in-bred political party thought, Trump is not.  The establishment dems wanted Sillary and apparently so did a damn lot of voters because she won the popular vote.  The republican establishment did not want Trump, the electoral college did and I’m told so did the Russians.  The American dream is still the all-time best seller.  Trump understood this, thus he is our (if you are an American) President.  

 

You could have indicated which facts in the originally linked article were not true.

Instead you made a blanket claim which is demonstrably FALSE.

You and your ilk seem incapable of presenting a sound argument.

Suggesting memes is "like fighting fire with fire" reinforces your gross ignorance - totally lacking logic.

The argument for 100% renewables based on new investment in electricity generation is not at all far fetched.  The only reason China, for example, has a greater present investment in FF energy at present is a result of its legacy build capacity.  Aside from that its commitment to renewables is greater than any other country in the world.

Dismissing a "prediction" with nothing to show why, except a load of irrelevances, makes those who are not American wonder about the fiction of your "American dream".

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 11:06 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/02/12/opinions/climate-change-opinion-heal/index.html

Might be easier than we've been told. Repeatedly.

 

Mariana - the article is straight green propaganda. Take the statement that cost of green energy is now well below the cost of conventional power and its reference to the levelized cost of energy calculations. As has been pointed out time and again the LCOE estimates do not take into account the cost of operating on a grid, so the calculations cannot be used to compare renewable and conventional power (with the big exception of hydro). Even comparing the different types of power in those two broad categories is highly questionable as they tend to have different roles on grids (coal is a mainstay, gas used on demand shoulders and hydro at peak times). A lot also depends on what access to power a grid has.. The LCOE costs are simply a general guide but, to repeat, they cannot be used to compare intermittent and conventional sources. In passing please note that the green projects  in the US get substantial Federal/state/local subsidies/legislative aid. These points have all been made many, many times, but there is always someone on the green side who does not get/does not want to accept, the memo.     

  • Like 5
  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Red said:

You could have indicated which facts in the originally linked article were not true.

Instead you made a blanket claim which is demonstrably FALSE.

You and your ilk seem incapable of presenting a sound argument.

Suggesting memes is "like fighting fire with fire" reinforces your gross ignorance - totally lacking logic.

The argument for 100% renewables based on new investment in electricity generation is not at all far fetched.  The only reason China, for example, has a greater present investment in FF energy at present is a result of its legacy build capacity.  Aside from that its commitment to renewables is greater than any other country in the world.

Dismissing a "prediction" with nothing to show why, except a load of irrelevances, makes those who are not American wonder about the fiction of your "American dream".

Red, although the material is endless in terms of showing examples of MSM bias and untruthfulness I won’t trouble myself with providing you examples.  I’m not going to change your mind.

in terms of the article linked, I make no argument one way or the other, my response was regarding the poster before me who said, “It wasn’t necessarily that the MSM is inaccurate”.  I reject that statement as inaccurate, especially CNN.  But as to that particular article I make no argument for or against its accuracy.

As to my “blanket claim being demonstrably false”, well, Red, if that’s your opinion in terms of the bunk the MSM turns out, you aren’t paying attention well enough.  Perhaps ABC in your country is above partisanship and bias.  The MSM here is not.  Quite the opposite.  They are partisan hacks of the worst order.  But to coin your oft repeated remark against those with whom you disagree, you offer opinion and nothing more.  Because I offended your Green sensibilities doesn’t illegitimate my beliefs.  Sorry not sorry mate.  You’ll find me and MANY of “my ilk” feel the same way about MSM bias here in the states.

I don’t agree with much of what you say, but I wouldn’t accuse you of being illogical because I don’t agree with you.  We have become used to your adhominem attack’s here in that regard so I won’t take it personally even if you meant it as such.

Understand please, I’m not against Green energy.  Matter of fact I want and hope it comes true.  I’m not a scientist but I will make a prediction.  No technology will emerge in the next 5 years that is so comprehensive and affordable that all of the current energy consuming world will switch to it.  Until then, drill baby drill, the undeniable and overwhelming majority of the world is depending on it.

Oh and by the way, I’d rather live the American Dream than live a pipe dream.  So would a whole lot of the world as evidenced by the clamor to make it to our shores.

Cheers mate.

 

Edited by TXPower
Spelling
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 4
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Perhaps ABC in your country is above partisanship and bias.

tell me more about "unbiased" ABC...

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

I'd rather live the American Dream than live a pipe dream.

you have your way with words!

Article is typical CNN brainwashing feel-good BS; won't give time of the day to dissect all the insults on reality there. But it mentions nuclear as carbon-free option and I find it interesting. Earlier "environmentalists" were dead against anything nuclear.

BTW, US consumes ~50MM lb of uranium and makes about ~1MM lb with balance imported mostly from Russia (anyone remembers UraniumOne story?) and Kazakhstan. Spot price is under cost of production. May be interesting turn-around, considering cost of fuel is very small %% in cost of energy.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Red said:

You and your ilk seem incapable of presenting a sound argument.

Suggesting memes is "like fighting fire with fire" reinforces your gross ignorance - totally lacking logic.

 

656a1253e23ebb414c79ce0e2460b9e68e168504146cac6f850068ef4a7a2a58.jpeg

a6eec12a09f06b66713aaf448078932268f78fa05aa85f0f6bdc243bf695ce2c.jpg

d13ed663570cf14a746a06698d1e0b7ad00832fbf1ada485b2625142a0cdb927.thumb.jpg.58cfbba5d2507661f16fba7e6b5389f2.jpg

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always like to hear someone ask for a 'ground floor opportunity'. If one looks at the billionaires in Silicon Valley, it's often because they had a fairly deep understanding of some technology, an understanding that took years and considerable education to acquire.

The solar company that makes the 'big break' may not exist right now. The future CEO of that company may be in some university laboratory at this point. That laboratory might be in Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or Singapore. The people that would make the investment would either have to take a lot on faith, or actually master the technology and the physics in question. The first option is likely to result in a lot of bad bets. The second is far more likely to work, but takes a lot of time to understand.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, TXPower said:

MSM is quite inaccurate, ALL THE TIME and willfully so.

That was your claim and it is a I said, it was a demonstrably false claim.

You now want to condition you comment after the event - somewhat laughable given your exact words were " as to that particular article I make no argument for or against its accuracy".   

Making a credible case seems beyond you.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

I don’t agree with much of what you say, but I wouldn’t accuse you of being illogical because I don’t agree with you.  We have become used to your adhominem attack’s here in that regard so I won’t take it personally even if you meant it as such.

You seem to devote a lot of your posts to matters of opinion or "emotion".

If you knew the subject matter of topics you mention you would use sources to back your comments.  Often the MSM rely on these sources for the guts of their articles; they are not necessarily facts but are possibly the best sources of information otherwise available.  WRT to new renewable capacity in the USA, Meredith's idea of 100% renewables is presently thwarted by low prices for gas - see here.    MSM reports on these data here

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Well Red, you seldom dissapoint. Just about every post you make is a personal attack on someone making a point that is not in line with your your agenda/beliefs. I'm not about to try to debate anything with you so don't even try to goad me into an exchange. 

You are not going to change anyone's mind nor am I. People who think logically come to an ideal from a broad collection of information from wide-ranging sources, certainly not from maniacal rants or attacks.

Kindly tone it down because it has gotten old.

Edited by MUI
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20190214_135043.jpg

28350f2fe1941425cbadcb095ba5fc586e6d31732c244301cdde29f83cc6e91d.jpeg

10cc9cd0b13defbc4905c4a6aef974700251e19e73bcf105c53d3b9039a3ea33.jpeg

c544840f1a01f0813af4097539a309f59bc3a419854f4d8dcb7ec9894f420c23.jpeg

97418de54b62b7d189d7c635e8627b6c3182c5be4a8034184d7fa5bc7dc9d0d3.jpeg

d88670e3c75d18363814126b0331aaf47c1cfae560ea3470c2250a12bab1936c.jpeg

7e87e6f1c75c9a110026502598e091bc53d0efdd730a01a941ef1690bf514995.jpeg

f281dc2023ebc4303f890c9525fef18f6ffb46ebcf960bf50a492e502169432b.thumb.jpeg.129db6616c00f2878f8d8b2dfa8d9f4d.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Red said:

You seem to devote a lot of your posts to matters of opinion or "emotion".

If you knew the subject matter of topics you mention you would use sources to back your comments.  Often the MSM rely on these sources for the guts of their articles; they are not necessarily facts but are possibly the best sources of information otherwise available.  WRT to new renewable capacity in the USA, Meredith's idea of 100% renewables is presently thwarted by low prices for gas - see here.    MSM reports on these data here

 

The only emotional person on this thread is the one throwing around personal insults.  That behavior derives from pure emotion.  Adios, Rojo.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MUI said:

Well Red, you seldom dissapoint. Just about every post you make is a personal attack on someone making a point that is not in line with your your agenda/beliefs. I'm not about to try to debate anything with you so don't even try to goad me into an exchange. 

You are not going to change anyone's mind nor am I. People who think logically come to an ideal from a broad collection of information from wide-ranging sources, certainly not from maniacal rants or attacks.

Kindly tone it down because it has gotten old.

Unlike you, I commented on the topic at hand.

Can't you do any better?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TXPower said:

The only emotional person on this thread is the one throwing around personal insults.  That behavior derives from pure emotion.  Adios, Rojo.

You just like to deny that what you said does not stack up.

Address your remarks to a sustainable argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I remind you all that the article at the start of this thread is labeled by CNN as "opinion >> political Op-Ed - Social Commentary" and includes the following warning " The opinions expressed in this commentary are the author's ".

So it's just Pr. Geoffrey Heal expressing his own opinion. We can agree or not with him (I personally mainly agree) , share our own opinions and present the facts on which our opinions are based.

But just throwing in tons of anti-MSM memes because the Op-Ed was published on the CNN website is not really helping the debate.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 6:15 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Using CNN as a source of information is not something I recommend.  I could add a graphic, to illustrate, but memes annoy some people, so I won't.

A recent poll was released that ranked journalism with honorable professions. Journalism came in slightly above child molestation, but below armed robbery.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Billyjack said:

A recent poll was released that ranked journalism with honorable professions. Journalism came in slightly above child molestation, but below armed robbery.

Pun?  Or please get the link so you can share the fun!  I caught a bit of live Trump at the podium this evening, and lo and behold it was Jim Accost-me that Mr. Trump called upon.  Once he shut him up, and did not acknowledge his "just one follow-on question", he moved on to another CNN plant that proceeded to ask the President the same question that Accost-me had just been yammering on about.  The question was about the "actual" number of illegals coming across the border from Mexico (Trump: way too many) and the "fact" that the illegals (Jim's word) commit less crime than U.S. citizens (Uh, Jim, in numbers we have over 300 million legal Americans and immigrants).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 8:06 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/02/12/opinions/climate-change-opinion-heal/index.html

Might be easier than we've been told. Repeatedly.

 

 

On 2/14/2019 at 1:15 PM, TXPower said:

MSM is quite inaccurate, ALL THE TIME and willfully so.

The only thing that can be done about MSM BS requires consumers who demand more fact reporting, truth and less mindless, easily digestible(requiring no real thought or reason to form an independent or educated opinion) news which really amounts to entertainment.  MSM is the symptom, not the cause.  Supply and demand.  Memes, which I must admit I find rather amusing, fit into this paradigm and I hope @Tom Kirkman keeps them coming.  It’s kinda like fighting fire with fire.  Or treating someone snake-bit with anti-venom made from venom.  

The cause, well, that’s a whole other topic but let’s sum it quickly, regressive liberal ideology that needs mass quantities of ignorant and easily swayed zombies to secure, maintain and increase power and influence.  That’s why we have a whole generation that can tell you who won big brother house, who hooked up with who on the bachelor and what’s going on with the kardashians; but can’t identify who their congressmen are, who the speaker of the house or minority leader is or pick Iran out on a map.  

100% renewable by 2025.....  damn, if that’s a prediction I would respectfully request predictions on which companies are gonna break the technology capable of that mainstream because I want to sell everything I own, hell, maybe even borrow money to buy stock in those firms.  The payoff will likely be like that enjoyed by the first Apple stock purchasers who held it till they exploded.

Though I agree Sillary is an excellent example of in-bred political party thought, Trump is not.  The establishment dems wanted Sillary and apparently so did a damn lot of voters because she won the popular vote.  The republican establishment did not want Trump, the electoral college did and I’m told so did the Russians.  The American dream is still the all-time best seller.  Trump understood this, thus he is our (if you are an American) President.  

 

 

On 2/15/2019 at 7:42 AM, markslawson said:

Mariana - the article is straight green propaganda. Take the statement that cost of green energy is now well below the cost of conventional power and its reference to the levelized cost of energy calculations. As has been pointed out time and again the LCOE estimates do not take into account the cost of operating on a grid, so the calculations cannot be used to compare renewable and conventional power (with the big exception of hydro). Even comparing the different types of power in those two broad categories is highly questionable as they tend to have different roles on grids (coal is a mainstay, gas used on demand shoulders and hydro at peak times). A lot also depends on what access to power a grid has.. The LCOE costs are simply a general guide but, to repeat, they cannot be used to compare intermittent and conventional sources. In passing please note that the green projects  in the US get substantial Federal/state/local subsidies/legislative aid. These points have all been made many, many times, but there is always someone on the green side who does not get/does not want to accept, the memo.     

summary quote:" good news" "supply and demand" "misinfo"................... dito to all. Nevertheless................ there is one important issue has been left out i.e. human population............ quoting Bill Gates in his facebook post:" .....the world will build an entire New York City every month for the next 40 years. The methods, tools, and materials we use will have a big impact on climate change:" 

Although this statement inspires me to be a material supplier but.............. the problem remains............ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 4:15 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Using CNN as a source of information is not something I recommend.  I could add a graphic, to illustrate, but memes annoy some people, so I won't.

Bring on the memes! You are a meme master!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites