Random Politics & Religion #00

I'm pretty sure I made my stance quite clear in previous posts today. No, I don't think that we have made enough progress given the amount of government money that has been handed over to the industry. I think it is has been corrupted by political motivations and has wasted too much money pointless projects. Do you need more clarification?

Yes, because you're not saying anything specific. Anyone can say there needs to be more progress, or political corruption, direct it at almost anything, and be correct.

Do you think the entire industry is supported entirely by government tax dollars and they're not putting out anything of value?

That's the problem. If man-made climate change is as much as a looming disaster as the alarmists claim, then a lot more of the money should go into making clean-energy products that could actually compete and/or excel in a global market. Nothing else will make a big enough difference, and it's the only way we'll ever reach some of the biggest polluters such as China and India. It'd be like NASA wasting so much money studying the moon that it never managed to build a craft capable of getting there.

The 2nd chart is the most interesting because it shows it's entirely possible the weather is exactly the same as it was 100's of years ago. If you don't see that then there is no point in trying to have a reasonable conversation.

Also, if you take both charts and say the 140yr one is weather and the 1000yrs one is climate. That would make you me and me you. wouldn't it?

No, I just expect more out of decades of research and my tax money than what we've got. The climate change industry is not the only government-funded industry I have beef with, btw. It just happens to be the current topic.

I will be happy to discuss the second graph with you once you just answer my question. Please.

So you do acknowledge that the clean energy industry have made some progress through government funded research, even though it's not as much as you would have liked?

This one?

I never said it was false. It's flawed

The internal combustion engine technology of today is not even in the same category as the first engines. Manufacturers still use antiquated technology like poppet valves because there is no incentive to use actual modern technology like spherical valves. Coates came up with that valve technology that increases engine efficiency by as much as 120% over current standards. Another big problem with making cars more efficient is the oil industry lobbying against stricter CAFE standards and American's insistence on driving huge SUV's. Ford is going to be making the next F series with an aluminum body, it'll weigh about 15% less. We have the technology right now to make even SUV's get 80+ MPG, and we're on the verge of being able to build very close to zero emission vehicles with hydrogen cell technology. The big holdup being money for the infrastructure to deliver it and a financial incentive for manufacturers to actually make the cars.

So, basically, like just about everything green, there isn't much push to make them mainstream because energy companies pay a lot of money to keep politicians from introducing legislation to encourage it and Americans want to drive big *** gas guzzling SUV's. The technology is very nearly ready, but until it's a priority, it'll continue to take a back seat.

Semantics doesn't really matter, but we can do it your way if it will move the conversation along.

Other than questions on methodology that I'm clearly not qualified to answer, do you have an assertive reasons why both these groups are putting out flawed information?

Not really,
Improved solar cells? Those are decades old.
Improved batteries? Batteries have been around for a Very long time.
Improved... Wind turbines? Again old.

Throwing money at MINOR improvements on old idea's is not good business.

I don't understand why it's a problem. We can address the solution in the way you're saying, but it's also necessary to deal with and prepare for the consequences of a changing climate.

Your beef seems to be with the private industry, really. I'm okay with the government enabling their efforts, but I'm not really comfortable with pumping buttloads of cash into an industry that has little motivation to move away from the current energy model and already has enough money of their own to *** around with.

Always aiming for those small, pointless victories. You can read though, right? Or do I have to repeat everything I say for your clarification so you can extract a drop of "i wonz at the interwebs" juice out of it? Yes, a bunch of wasted money that could have been better spent elsewhere did manage to result in some progress. Go do your victory dance.

Alright not every person wants to drive a gas guzzling SUV, and if the tech exists to make them go 80 mile on a gallon of gas why isn't this miracle engine in a car and being advertised? More people want to drive a super fuel efficient car than a gas guzzling SUV. Your logic is unsound. If the Oil company's are so powerful why does the Prius even exists?
And You people talk about conservatives being all paranoid of conspiracy.

Wait a minute.

You literally denying that the clean energy industry has made progress over the years through government funded research, and then listed a number of areas where there have been improvements.

This doesn't really make sense. Please clarify.


Also, will you also please answer this question.

Do you honestly think that those technologies you listed have seen only minor improvements? That's pretty dense.

Sorry, me and my reading comprehension are having a problem.
I missed the part where Rav said he was Okay with this. So I'm kinda confused on why you would even bring it up..

Winning internet arguments really isn't that big a deal to me.

I'm more interested in why, after years upon years, the left and the right aren't able to communicate in a coherent way.

We may disagree on how efficient that money has been spent, but if you think there has been progress, can then I also get you to agree that cutting off funding will damper or maybe even haul any progress at all, however little, that we've been making over the decades?

If I'm worried about intruders breaking into my house, should I buy a frickin' security system or should I hire a committee to investigate all the possible consequences of having my house broken into? If you fix the problem at the source, you don't have to waste extra energy considering all the possible consequences.

Well that's where you misunderstand me then. I'm not saying cut off all funding, I'm saying if you're going to spend money on it then don't spend it in stupid ways.

I spent 3 years with Nissan Technical Center testing and developing. If you had a clue how car design works and what has to be done to meet price points, you'd think twice before running your mouth about my logic.

Look it up, genius, spherical rotary valves, gas direct injection, hydrogen fuel cells, etc etc etc. Nobody is building them because they cost an arm and a leg and they are in business to make money. Until we literally run out of oil or it's illegal to build them the way they do now, the technology will sit and collect dust.

You should look into what it takes to shave just a few dollars off the production cost of a car.

And that's a completely reasonable sentiment to have.

Can you give any specifics?

If it's anything like the industry I'm currently working with, the answer is to lay off as many people as you can in an attempt to save money until all the workers quit because they now have much larger workloads and the same pay as before. Works like a charm until it all collapses under its own weight.

Sounds like every recessive industry ever.

AO, I know you're still in this thread.

Here if the question I presented before:

If you don't have any reasons, do you acknowledge that the average global temperature is rising then?

Terrible analogy. I think the problem is this idea that once we find a way to manage our emissions that the earth will reverse course quickly and everything goes back to normal. Even if (BIG IF) we kept emissions steady immediately, a trend reversal is going to take decades to show a significant decline. So, yeah, preparedness is necessary.

I live in the Southwest so you can be sure funding has gone into assessing water resources in order to draw up ways in which long-term drought can be dealt with. Meanwhile, private industries are looking into different ways to tap and sell other resources since there's actual money to be made there. That leaves the government to fund the work no one else bothers to do.
Well, I'm confused with what Rav actually wants so you'll excuse me if I have to fill in the blanks somehow.

I appreciate that you're nicer than you used to be, but you ask way too many questions to reasonably expect an answer to all of them. This is especially true when, as in this case, such questions could be answered by simply looking back at previous comments. I can't tell if you're baiting or just curious, but it gets tedious having to repeat myself.