Stupid sh#t people have posted

Archy1221 said:
You gonna replace 280 million US cars in 12-15 years? Will we have that many batteries to do it?   Will we have that many materials to build that many batteries?   Charging station build outs for 280 million cars? 
Click to expand...


There are obviously a lot of unanswered questions, but there have also been a lot of changes in the last 12-15 years that some might even call "rapid" for the giant super tanker they're reversing. You'd have to concede a couple decades (maybe more) for the concerted efforts of Big Automakers and Petroleum to undermine and yes, destroy energy efficient alternatives that threaten them. They could have been profiting from electric cars and alt fuels ages ago. 

Time frames always get pushed out. Lofty goals always sound unrealistic. But global leadership and daring innovation is what has made America great.

The question is: why do you hate America? 

And for f#&%'s sake, people, why is this thread in the Shed? If we're not going to resort to profanity and name-calling, then take this conversation upstairs. 

 
Archy1221 said:
Shouldn’t your statement be a reason for all the PR conversations to just move to the shed??  
Click to expand...


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?

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DevoHusker said:
And we will need to burn a s#!tload of coal to do so.

It takes 5-7 years to get one...1...nuclear power plant on line.

I, and I think Archy, have no issue with the proposed transition. It's the unrealistic time frame.
Click to expand...
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:



 
Archy1221 said:
Are you intentionally not understanding or am I doing a bad job of repeatedly saying this…..I DONT CARE WHAT ENERGY SOURCE OUR COUNTRY RUNS OFF OF.    currently we are fossil fuel dependent and will continue to be until the renewable energy tech gets up to speed to overtake fossil fuels.  That ain’t happening in 12-15 years.  Trying to change this in 12-15 years is radical crazy talk.   Telling us all that it needs to happen that soon or the climate will forever be altered is also equally crazy.  
 

Humans will change energy sources eventually.   We have plenty of time to allow the renewable technology to catch up to our needs.   That is my point.  There is no reason for the alarmism.   
 

Do you believe that humans will be as dependent on fossil fuels 100 years from now as humans currently are?  I don’t.  I also don’t believe Earth will be much different as it is now once renewable tech does becomes efficiently enough to become the dominant or sole player in energy 
Click to expand...


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 said:
Yeah, it would have to be something crazy dramatic, like raging wildfires, unprecedented heat waves, collapsing glaciers, and crippling droughts. 

Oh. Wait. 
Click to expand...
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?

 
JJ Husker said:
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?
Click to expand...
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!) 

 
Archy1221 said:
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!) 
Click to expand...


This is what the kids call "owning the libs." 

Got 'em, Arch.   :thumbs

 
Archy1221 said:
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.  
 
Click to expand...


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/climate-change-rising-temperatures-may-force-humans-move/

 
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top