Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
24 crawler(s) on-line.
 105 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 amigakit:  27 mins ago
 OneTimer1:  32 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  36 mins ago
 kolla:  48 mins ago
 Gunnar:  51 mins ago
 Comi:  1 hr 17 mins ago
 vox:  2 hrs 3 mins ago
 zipper:  2 hrs 6 mins ago
 BigD:  3 hrs 10 mins ago
 OlafS25:  3 hrs 12 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )
Poll : Should Elon Musk revolutionize Computer World again?
I*m OK with the Computers of Today!
All Computers of Today thrill like Pancakes!
No, Shut the #### up!
Yes of Course Elon Musk should create a Team!
Shut down the Internet and all Computers!
There can`t be a Computer Ferrari anymore!
This Shit will #### you up!
 
PosterThread
MEGA_RJ_MICAL 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 30-Oct-2022 3:12:14
#201 ]
Super Member
Joined: 13-Dec-2019
Posts: 1200
From: AMIGAWORLD.NET WAS ORIGINALLY FOUNDED BY DAVID DOYLE

Right, but what are the A500 acceptable PSU values?

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 30-Oct-2022 6:43:57
#202 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 2018
From: Cheshire, England

@matthey

Quote:
Carbon Dioxide is Making The World Greener (w/ Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI


‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html

Plus also a lot of the video was him saying we’re not sure, more research needed, that all well and good and there isn’t a absolute consensus on climate science, but if one side is saying there a high chance this is not good for us, isn’t that the side we should perhaps listen to encase there right?

Let put climate to one side, and make a few other points,

Fossil fuels are going to run out at some point, in fact it really bad that so much oils is burnt when it has so many other important uses, we should be saving it for that. These resource are only going to get harder to access (pushing up cost) and run out at some point, so we’re going to have to make the transition at some point.

Health, fossile fuels are linked to so many deaths, and air quality, it sad that schools on busy road they find kids can be effected by either the co2 or simply the noise.
https://studyfinds.org/noisy-traffic-roads-outside-school-children-slower-learners/
Moving to electric cars and more of our energy generated cleanly will help.

National security, how many wars and problem are over oil and gas is shocking, this whole russia holding eu to ransom is really bad, renewable can be produce in the home country and create jobs, weather it be wind, tidal, solar, bio fuels, (bio fuels is a big miss opportunity for things like gone off food wastes or even grass can be turned into gas) yes there are some issues on energy storage, but battery tech is super charge at the moment, plus in 10 years time thousands of old electric cars will be scarped, but the battery can then have another life as grid batteries.

Costs, solar panels usually pay for them self in 10 to 20 years and start making you money, wind is now the cheapest way to produce energy, and battery tech is only getting better and cheaper.

Energy independency, it was interesting in Texas not that long ago when power cut happened how electric cars and battery helped a lot of people and it made more people want to get off the grid for there power, it great we have tech now allows you to do that.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 30-Oct-2022 7:07:00
#203 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3621
From: Germany

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:

There are huge benefits of CO2 including increased agricultural yields, increased forest growth and decreased heating costs from the warming effect. Some scientists believe there is human caused climate change but that it is not nearly as big of concern as the hysteria spreading extremists claim.

Actually it's exactly the opposite: only some = A FEW scientists don't believe on the global warming, while the (almost all of them) do.
Quote:
Carbon Dioxide is Making The World Greener (w/ Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI

Freeman Dyson is actually more neutral on human climate change but that is more than enough to get attacked by the liberals. My position is pretty much the same as that of Freeman and he only confirmed what I already believed including the effect of sun activity on the climate. He doesn't believe climate models are accurate because of the complexity (they haven't been) and believes the sun plays a large effect that is not understood (he talks about a solar minimum that corresponds to the mini ice age). The benefits of CO2 have often been overlooked while the detrimental effects are exaggerated.

See above: part of the few.
Quote:
Liberal extremists keep pushing themselves to new extremism and hysteria. Most of the Democrat party here in the U.S. used to be for a diverse energy policy with natural gas, oil and nuclear power being part of the solution but they are now for renewable/green energy only.

Idiots are everywhere. Nuclear is the way to go for quickly reducing the CO2 emissions.
Quote:
At least Greta Thunberg finally came around to accepting nuclear power despite her previous intolerance for anything but renewable energy. Renewable energy usually delivers less energy for the same cost as petroleum energy. Germany bought into green energy in a big way and it is paying for it.

Exactly. Idiots everywhere.
Quote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/coal-mine-demolishes-neighboring-wind-farm-boost-countrys-energy-supply-drawing-climate-activists

Germany has 'learnt its lesson' as it looks to increase coal power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE5H5JYcLKg

Which is not correct. The plan was to reduce coal 'til the point to eliminate it. But with the energy crisis German was forced to use again coal.

And the only reason for that is because the Green party is against nuclear. So, they preferred to use coal (which increases A LOT the CO2) instead of nuclear.

Fortunately in the last month the government decided to don't shut down 4 nuclear plants. Despite the stupids yelling at them. A little bit of good sense.
Quote:
Industrial production and national wealth go bye bye without energy and the people are poor from just paying their energy bills. Many of the liberal extremists are anti-business socialists that have no concept of economics though.

And republicans lack science concepts...
Quote:
Those things are important. I believe poor management of land and resources has had more of an effect on our environment than CO2 petroleum emmissions. Humans have destroyed roughly half the forests in the world in recent history often to clear it for food and bio-fuel production which continues today. We have drained peat bogs and burned the peat. Forests and peat bogs are huge natural carbon sinks which, when destroyed, lose the carbon capture as well as releasing the carbon storage. Natural gas, oil and coal come from dead organisms and already lost any carbon capture effects so they only release stored carbon with less CO2 increase.

The problem is with the CO2 which is going to the atmosphere after burning oil and wood. Plus, we destroyed the forests...
Quote:
Careless land and sea management and elimination of natural animals and their environment has an effect too. The effect is not well understood by scientists. The environmental damage is often blamed on climate change but it is likely more than that.

Likely for whom?
Quote:
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

We have the technology to fix the problem and green the world but we are still destroying it instead. We need to understand the problem better before we over react. Allan Savory doesn't have it all figured out but I believe he is on the right track. He is also often criticized by consensus science but consensus science is bad science. Anyone who doesn't think CO2 is the primary environmental problem is discounted and attacked.

Again, we discussed it: there's no "bad science". Almost all scientists are aligned on the global warming with TONs of proofs.

Only a few are not.

And you already have seen the effects of the climate change. Draw your conclusions...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 31-Oct-2022 0:38:32
#204 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

amigang Quote:

‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html

Plus also a lot of the video was him saying we’re not sure, more research needed, that all well and good and there isn’t a absolute consensus on climate science, but if one side is saying there a high chance this is not good for us, isn’t that the side we should perhaps listen to encase there right?


Who's research and arguments get promoted and more importantly funded? Is it the scientists that claim the sky will be falling because we want to error on the side of caution? Isn't that how hysteria gets started, promoted and then funded?

Look at the article you linked.

Quote:

“The driving factor has to be the fertilizers, the seed varieties, the irrigation,” Dr. Campbell said.

...

“Plants are quietly scrubbing the air of one China’s worth of carbon. What frightens me is knowing this can’t go on forever,” said Dr. Campbell. “If respiration catches up with photosynthesis, this huge carbon reservoir could spill back into our air.”


This is drawing absurd conclusions and turning them into hysteria. The total CO2 output of plants is taken whether it is positive or negative and I don't expect it will be negative anytime for the same reason there are no perpetual machines (the plant would not grow without using CO2). It is likely that more CO2 will only make the plants grow so much more as they have other limitations but where is the "terrible" that is in the article title which is using another hysteria buzz word. I can believe and expect the concentration of nutrients in leafier plants from more CO2 to drop but that is not a problem. This is nothing new and can apply to other limiting factors for plant growth like water and fertilizer. There was a study of good fats in olive oil where the healthiest olive oil came from northern Africa (Morocco?) where the trees were struggling with restricted water and fertilizer. Some leafy plants can become toxic to humans with too much fertilizer like spinach and amaranth (same family). The nutritional value will vary from plant to plant and in many cases we can eat more to get the same nutritional value with the benefit of more fiber. The New York Times is usually a reasonably reliable source of information but this article is weak.

amigang Quote:

Let put climate to one side, and make a few other points,

Fossil fuels are going to run out at some point, in fact it really bad that so much oils is burnt when it has so many other important uses, we should be saving it for that. These resource are only going to get harder to access (pushing up cost) and run out at some point, so we’re going to have to make the transition at some point.


There have been peak oil theories and when it would happen many times but new finds keep setting it back. It is true that oil is getting more expensive to find and bring to market but we have gotten better at it. Eventually, we will transition to something better when it is ready which would likely be nuclear power if we were investing in it. Different energy sources have different advantages which is why a diversified energy policy is best. Oil is easily transportable, creates a dense fuel in gasoline and has lubrication properties which you have mentioned. Natural gas is easy to pipe, burns clean and is efficient for heating. Renewable energies often have advantages also but production is often in remote areas that needs lots of energy infrastructure to bring to markets. Nuclear is very clean but requires large scale production with expensive plants while there are security and safety issues. Energy demand is growing and we need all these energy sources for now or energy prices will increase by more than price increases from finding and recovering oil and gas. I believe these price increases are what the green agenda is causing now and the price increases started before the Ukrainian war started. Using debt to subsidize green energy adds to the energy price increases through inflation. Most socialists believe in Keynesian economics stimulation with ever increasing government debt so have little chance in stopping the inflation while they eliminate oil, gas and nuclear energy sources driving up energy prices.

amigang Quote:

Health, fossile fuels are linked to so many deaths, and air quality, it sad that schools on busy road they find kids can be effected by either the co2 or simply the noise.
https://studyfinds.org/noisy-traffic-roads-outside-school-children-slower-learners/
Moving to electric cars and more of our energy generated cleanly will help.


Sigh. The noise is reducing IQs so we should eliminate oil?

Nuclear power with electric vehicles is a good idea to reduce pollution is big cities. There is no need to stop using clean natural gas for heating or restrict gasoline engines. Cheap nuclear energy would allow many people to buy small electric vehicles for city use. It is the bigger longer range vehicles which don't work as well using electric vehicles which also get expensive.

amigang Quote:

National security, how many wars and problem are over oil and gas is shocking, this whole russia holding eu to ransom is really bad, renewable can be produce in the home country and create jobs, weather it be wind, tidal, solar, bio fuels, (bio fuels is a big miss opportunity for things like gone off food wastes or even grass can be turned into gas) yes there are some issues on energy storage, but battery tech is super charge at the moment, plus in 10 years time thousands of old electric cars will be scarped, but the battery can then have another life as grid batteries.

Costs, solar panels usually pay for them self in 10 to 20 years and start making you money, wind is now the cheapest way to produce energy, and battery tech is only getting better and cheaper.

Energy independency, it was interesting in Texas not that long ago when power cut happened how electric cars and battery helped a lot of people and it made more people want to get off the grid for there power, it great we have tech now allows you to do that.


Lack of energy is a national security problem and can lead to wars. A diversified energy policy helps with this problem. France with its nuclear power is much better off than Germany with its green energy only transition.

cdimauro Quote:

Actually it's exactly the opposite: only some = A FEW scientists don't believe on the global warming, while the (almost all of them) do.


Did you watch the videos? We believe in human affected climate changed. We believe the hysteria is greater than problems caused by elevated CO2 levels though.

cdimauro Quote:

Idiots are everywhere. Nuclear is the way to go for quickly reducing the CO2 emissions.


I agree. Nuclear energy used to be part of the green energy solution but hysteria caused nuclear to be added to the evil energy list too. We need to keep improving nuclear technology but that won't happen if we eliminate it due to hysteria.

cdimauro Quote:

Which is not correct. The plan was to reduce coal 'til the point to eliminate it. But with the energy crisis German was forced to use again coal.

And the only reason for that is because the Green party is against nuclear. So, they preferred to use coal (which increases A LOT the CO2) instead of nuclear.

Fortunately in the last month the government decided to don't shut down 4 nuclear plants. Despite the stupids yelling at them. A little bit of good sense.


The Democrats here in the U.S. haven't learned their lesson yet either. They still want to eliminate oil, gas and nuclear energy. We should boost oil and gas production which would reduce the use of dirtier coal. We have boosted it some but we could do it faster to supply Europe without the Democrats in the way. Nuclear energy plants are too slow to build to make a short term difference.

cdimauro Quote:

And republicans lack science concepts...


There are some global warming deniers and extremists in the Republican party but I don't believe as many. The Democrat extremists want green energy only (anti-business), occupy wall street and government buildings (anti-business/anti-law), defund the police and black lives matter (anti-law/anarchy), open unregulated borders and sanctuary cities (anti-law/anarchy) and have been responsible for most of the riots and vandalism (anti-law/anarchy). Human affected climate change deniers aren't destroying the U.S. economy like Democrat extremists which have led the whole party to the left. The U.S. had a responsible diverse energy policy before the Democrats. We have clean energy using oil and gas compared to China. We still use some coal but with high tech scrubbers that is cleaner than the coal used by China that we ship to them. Low cost energy is a competitive advantage and China realizes this but Democrats don't understand economics. China's Belt and Road Initiative has invested heavily in not so clean cheap energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative

cdimauro Quote:

Again, we discussed it: there's no "bad science". Almost all scientists are aligned on the global warming with TONs of proofs.

Only a few are not.

And you already have seen the effects of the climate change. Draw your conclusions...


Math has proofs but not science. Scientific method has theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific consensus and proofs are "bad science".

Last edited by matthey on 31-Oct-2022 at 10:55 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 31-Oct-2022 at 12:43 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 31-Oct-2022 5:05:39
#205 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 2018
From: Cheshire, England

@matthey

Quote:
Who's research and arguments get promoted and more importantly funded?

Absolutely right!!!

Freeman Dyson wiki

‘Dyson was a member of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate change denial lobbying group.[82]”, “ May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016-2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Oh and …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment

https://theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642

https://www.clf.org/blog/calling-out-big-oil-climate-disinformation/

What I still don’t get is that, renewable can be cheaper, healthier, provide job in home country, allow you to be off the grid, energy security, Stable energy prices, Reliability, resilience, last forever, oh and may help the climate, yet people still don’t like it and still have to find the odd negative stuff about it and choose to ignore all the negative stuff with fossils fuels, that do damage health, fund questionable regimes, do have huge price fluctuations, do have gov subsidies, do produce more co2, have had huge environmental disasters (all the oils spills!) etc. ( https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/benefits-renewable-energy-use )

Now no energy production is perfect but with renewable only getting better and cheaper and with the risk of climate change being real, I know which one I would pick.


Last edited by amigang on 31-Oct-2022 at 05:25 AM.
Last edited by amigang on 31-Oct-2022 at 05:25 AM.
Last edited by amigang on 31-Oct-2022 at 05:14 AM.
Last edited by amigang on 31-Oct-2022 at 05:10 AM.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 31-Oct-2022 7:01:53
#206 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3621
From: Germany

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:

cdimauro Quote:

Which is not correct. The plan was to reduce coal 'til the point to eliminate it. But with the energy crisis German was forced to use again coal.

And the only reason for that is because the Green party is against nuclear. So, they preferred to use coal (which increases A LOT the CO2) instead of nuclear.

Fortunately in the last month the government decided to don't shut down 4 nuclear plants. Despite the stupids yelling at them. A little bit of good sense.


The Democrats here in the U.S. haven't learned their lesson yet either. They still want to eliminate oil, gas and nuclear energy.

Good for oil and gas, bad for nuclear.

We should move to nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar: in that order of importance.
Quote:
We should boost oil and gas production which would reduce the use of dirtier coal.

Actually we should reduce all of them: coal (first), oil and gas.
Quote:
We have boosted it some but we could do it faster to supply Europe without the Democrats in the way.

Actually we're in emergency so it's ok. But as long term plan.
Quote:
Nuclear energy plants are too slow to build to make a short term difference.

There are mini nuclear reactors which could be operative in 3-4 years. And they are safe, too.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

And republicans lack science concepts...


There are some global warming deniers and extremists in the Republican party but I don't believe as many. The Democrat extremists want green energy only (anti-business), occupy wall street (anti-business), defund the police (anti-law/anarchy), open unregulated borders (anti-law/anarchy) and have been responsible for most of the riots and vandalism (anti-law/anarchy). Global warming deniers aren't destroying the U.S. economy like Democrat extremists which have led the whole party to the left.

Do you classify ALL Democrats as extremists? Did I get it right?
Quote:
The U.S. had a responsible diverse energy policy before the Democrats. We have clean energy using oil and gas compared to China.

Oil and gas are NOT clean.
Quote:
We still use some coal but with high tech scrubbers that is cleaner than the coal used by China that we ship to them. Low cost energy is a competitive advantage and China realizes this but Democrats don't understand economics.

Neither Republicans if they don't understand that it's important to apply carbon-taxes to imports to hurt such countries which continue to pollute the world.
Quote:
China's Belt and Road Initiative has invested heavily in not so clean cheap energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative

See above: there are ways to block/limit it.

The problem with Repubblicans is that they want to continue to make business with China, as it is, because it's convenient for their lobbies.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Again, we discussed it: there's no "bad science". Almost all scientists are aligned on the global warming with TONs of proofs.

Only a few are not.

And you already have seen the effects of the climate change. Draw your conclusions...


Math has proofs but not science. Scientific method has theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific consensus and proofs are "bad science".

Science is NOT only about scientific method. That's your fault.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-declaration-global-climate-emergency/story?id=66774137

All crazy, right? Whereas Dyson and the few like him are all right, eh?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Kronos 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 31-Oct-2022 10:25:42
#207 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 2553
From: Unknown

Oh what I surprise, people who believe in obvious Amiga related nonsense will also do the same on other topics.....

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 31-Oct-2022 12:49:50
#208 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4394
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

Climate change denial is a moving target.

First the denial was that the climate was changing.

Then it was grudgingly accepted that it is changing but human activities are not the cause.

We are now in the phase of accepting that human activity is, at least in part, responsible but the effects aren't that bad.


Will plant growth accelerate due to more CO2? Well, possibly. Provided there is also water. However, the problem with changes in climate are that there will likely be changes in rainfall. If the seas rise, a lot of arable land may also be at risk of inundation and the associated issues of increasing soil salinity.

The denial is now focusing mostly on the outcome of the change. And it's true that it's all speculative because it's yet to happen, but you can only deal with what you can measure and extrapolate from.

Governments that are completely in the pocket of oil and gas companies, e.g in Australia, put money into carbon capture technology to look like they are doing something, but unless you capture it directly at source and prevent it from ever reaching the atmosphere it's pointless. Trial plants that can sequester possibly millions of tons of carbon a year. What's that compared to the dozens of gigatons released per annum?




_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
evilFrog 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 31-Oct-2022 14:32:32
#209 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 20-Jan-2004
Posts: 397
From: UK

@MEGA_RJ_MICAL

Quote:

MEGA_RJ_MICAL wrote:
Right, but what are the A500 acceptable PSU values?


One, if it's working right...

_________________
"Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard, be evil."

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 2:08:29
#210 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

amigang Quote:

Absolutely right!!!

Freeman Dyson wiki

‘Dyson was a member of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate change denial lobbying group.[82]”, “ May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016-2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation


This is a good example of the smear campaign by environmental extremists on the left. "Climate change denial" does not describe Freeman Dyson's position which is obvious from watching the video I linked. He says, "First of all there is man made climate change, it's a question of how much and is it good or bad." Your link on the GWPF says the following.

Quote:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a charitable organization in the United Kingdom whose stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, have been characterized as practising and promoting climate change denial.


One of the articles they reference in support of the sentence above in bold characterizes GWPF as promoting climate change.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140511082724/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/nigel-lawsons-climatechange-denial-charity-intimidated-environmental-expert-9350069.html

Quote:

A think-tank that has become the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial is embroiled in a row about its charitable status.


In the same article, the director of GWPF is quoted as stating the following.

Dr. Benny Peiser Quote:

The GWPF does not dispute the physics of climate change – such as the warming effect of greenhouse gases – but argues that the Earth's atmosphere is less sensitive than thought by the vast majority of scientists and that humans should simply "adapt" to the new conditions, rather than trying to prevent them from occurring by switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy.


In other words, the characterization very much looks like a false label that does not support the official position of GWPF. There may be members of the group that deny human affected climate change but Freeman Dyson does not. This is a good example of the labeling, attacks and smearing of scientists who do not capitulate to consensus science which is bad science. The scientific consensus before global warming was global cooling. The reality is there is climate change like there has always been and we do not know how much is man made although humans certainly are affecting it and not just by releasing CO2. Such a neutral position gets characterized as climate denial by extremists.

The group receiving "dark money" and Koch brothers money is another example of sensationalism and conspiracies. One of the two Koch brothers owning the majority of Koch Industries, David Koch, isn't even alive anymore and they are/were conservative libertarians, who like me, don't like over burdensome and ignorant regulations which are so common in business, especially related to energy. There are similar conspiracies on the right about George Soros and his funding. Sarah Scaife "heir to an oil and banking dynasty" is more of the same bs.

amigang Quote:

Oh and …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment

https://theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642

https://www.clf.org/blog/calling-out-big-oil-climate-disinformation/

What I still don’t get is that, renewable can be cheaper, healthier, provide job in home country, allow you to be off the grid, energy security, Stable energy prices, Reliability, resilience, last forever, oh and may help the climate, yet people still don’t like it and still have to find the odd negative stuff about it and choose to ignore all the negative stuff with fossils fuels, that do damage health, fund questionable regimes, do have huge price fluctuations, do have gov subsidies, do produce more co2, have had huge environmental disasters (all the oils spills!) etc. ( https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/benefits-renewable-energy-use )

Now no energy production is perfect but with renewable only getting better and cheaper and with the risk of climate change being real, I know which one I would pick.


This is more sensationalism and conspiracy theories using buzz words like "big oil" against the energy industry by environmental extremists. It is not as simple to replace oil and gas with renewable energy as many people think. Renewable energy sources have advantages and disadvantages. They can be inconsistent, not where the energy will be used requiring expensive infrastructure, can take up lots of land that can be used for other purposes and can produce pollution and CO2. Warren Buffett talks about Berkshire Hathaway Energy and some of the obstacles.

https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2020ltr.pdf Quote:

Let me tell you about one of BHE’s endeavors – its $18 billion commitment to rework and expand a substantial portion of the outdated grid that now transmits electricity throughout the West. BHE began this project in 2006 and expects it to be completed by 2030 – yes, 2030.

The advent of renewable energy made our project a societal necessity. Historically, the coal-based generation of electricity that long prevailed was located close to huge centers of population. The best sites for the new world of wind and solar generation, however, are often in remote areas. When BHE assessed the situation in 2006, it was no secret that a huge investment in western transmission lines had to be made. Very few companies or governmental entities, however, were in a financial position to raise their hand after they tallied the project’s cost.

BHE’s decision to proceed, it should be noted, was based upon its trust in America’s political, economic and judicial systems. Billions of dollars needed to be invested before meaningful revenue would flow. Transmission lines had to cross the borders of states and other jurisdictions, each with its own rules and constituencies. BHE would also need to deal with hundreds of landowners and execute complicated contracts with both the suppliers that generated renewable power and the far-away utilities that would distribute the electricity to their customers. Competing interests and defenders of the old order, along with unrealistic visionaries desiring an instantly-new world, had to be brought on board.

Both surprises and delays were certain. Equally certain, however, was the fact that BHE had the managerial talent, the institutional commitment and the financial wherewithal to fulfill its promises. Though it will be many years before our western transmission project is completed, we are today searching for other projects of similar size to take on.

Whatever the obstacles, BHE will be a leader in delivering ever-cleaner energy.


Warren Buffett socially leans to the left even though he is fiscally conservative. The left in the U.S. vilifies him because he is a rich business man like they do Elon Musk who is more of a moderate. Warren learned a lot from his investment in BHE. With this experience, he has been aggressively buying Chevron and Occidental Petroleum stock for Bershire Hathaway. At the end of quarter 2 this year, the top 10 BH holdings look like the following.

Stock | Shares | Value
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) 907,559,761 $153.5 billion
Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) 1,010,100,606 $35.8 billion
Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) 400,000,000 $26.1 billion
Chevron (NYSE:CVX) 161,890,149 $25.5 billion
American Express (NYSE:AXP) 151,610,700 $24.6 billion
Occidental Petroleum (NYSE:OXY) 188,366,460 $13.4 billion
Kraft Heinz (NASDAQ:KHC) 325,634,818 $12.5 billion
BYD (OTC:BYDD.F) 225,000,000 $7.8 billion
Moody's (NYSE:MCO) 24,669,778 $7.7 billion
U.S. Bancorp (NYSE:USB) 119,805,135 $5.8 billion

https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/famous-investors/warren-buffett-investments/stocks-owned/

The BH CVX position would be worth about $29.3 billion now if he hasn't added to it so it may have moved up to the 3rd largest position while the OXY stock price has not moved up as much and would be worth about $13.6 billion. BH owns over 20% of OXY and may buy it out to add to the BH conglomerate. Warren Buffett sees value in these energy stocks even though he has invested in and understands renewable energy. It doesn't sound like he is a human affected climate change denier but I expect liberal extremists label and attack him too.

CVX just happens to be my largest position. I also have smaller positions in AAPL and OXY. I know I owned CVX before Warren Buffett and I believe AAPL and OXY as well. It's funny that he followed me. I own stock in other energy businesses including DVN, COP, PSX and BP. With energy prices on the rise, BP is the laggard. I expect it will see some appreciation as it lags behind but renewable energy often requires large capital expenditures with lower return over a longer time frame like BHE has experienced. Other "big oil" companies have invested in renewable energy as well without moving away from oil and gas (UK energy plan is to hug your pet in winter and their extreme green energy politics are diminishing BP). CVX is the 2nd largest biofuel producer in the U.S. mostly from biodiesel. The following Bloomberg video mentions it.

Chevron CEO Wirth on Third-Quarter, Windfall Taxes, Venezuela
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVJzGthWLo8

The video also talks about Europe and CVX efforts to increase oil and gas supply for Europe. Onerous regulations are mentions and the U.S. energy policies. Mike Wirth tries not to be political while shooting down all the liberal socialist economics that reduce supply. It's sad that not too long ago he was called before a Congressional hearing by Democrats and attacked for CVX being one of the few energy business increasing oil and gas production. I looked for a shorter video of that hearing but couldn't find it. Democrats sometimes act like they want to boost production with the Ukraine war and other times still want to eliminate all oil and gas. The uncertainty has resulted in a slow increase in energy production and higher than necessary energy prices.

Last edited by matthey on 01-Nov-2022 at 02:36 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 01-Nov-2022 at 02:26 AM.
Last edited by matthey on 01-Nov-2022 at 02:18 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 3:55:12
#211 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

cdimauro Quote:

Do you classify ALL Democrats as extremists? Did I get it right?


The U.S. Democrat party as a whole are extremists. There are few exceptions in Congress with Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin being the only moderates left that think for themselves and don't vote the party line. They are incessantly attacked by members of their own Democrat party. There was Tulsi Gabbard who was viciously attacked by Hillary Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard Quote:

On January 22, 2013, Gabbard was unanimously elected to a four-year term as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. In September 2015, she criticized chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's decision to hold only six debates during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, compared with 26 in 2008 and 15 in 2004, and to exclude any candidate who participated in a non-DNC sanctioned debate from all future DNC-sanctioned debates. Gabbard released a statement about the heated and public disagreements surrounding the debates in a Facebook post in 2015.

Following her public criticisms of the debate process, Gabbard was reported to have been either "disinvited" or asked to "consider not coming" to the October 13, 2015, Democratic debate in Las Vegas. In an interview with The New York Times, she spoke of an unhealthy atmosphere, saying, "no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door" in taking the job. Gabbard privately wrote to Wasserman Schultz, accusing her of violating the DNC's duty of neutrality by favoring Hillary Clinton. This letter later became public in leaked emails published by WikiLeaks.

...

In October 2019, false and later corrected stories claimed that former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said that Russia was "grooming" a female Democrat to run as a third-party candidate, who would help President Donald Trump win reelection via a spoiler effect. The media understood Clinton to be referring to Gabbard, which Nick Merril, a Clinton spokesperson, seemed to confirm to CNN by saying: "If the nesting doll fits"; however, Gabbard repeatedly said she would not run as a third-party candidate in 2020 and did not do so. Gabbard was defended by a number of fellow 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, who rejected Clinton's suggestion that Gabbard was a Russian asset. Trump also defended Gabbard. Gabbard filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton in January 2020, but dropped it five months later. To represent her in her lawsuit against Clinton, Gabbard retained two attorneys with the Los Angeles law firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht and Davidoff Hutcher & Citron which, during the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, also had represented George Papadopoulos and Rudy Giuliani.


Hillary Clinton used the same smear tactics on Tulsi as she did on Trump falsely accusing both of being Russian assets (perhaps why Trump helped her). More than a few moderates have moved to the Republican party where they are generally accepted. There used to be more moderate and fiscally conservative "Blue Dog Coalition" Democrats primarily from the South but there numbers have dwindled and they usually vote the party line now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

President Biden passed himself off as being a moderate but he has been anything but. The Democrat party has moved far to the left and it is controlled by extremists though not everyone individually is an extremist.

cdimauro Quote:

Oil and gas are NOT clean.


Sigh. Natural/propane/methane gas is very clean to burn and renewable replacements may not be much better. We also don't need to drop CO2 emissions to zero. You are vilifying part of the solution.

cdimauro Quote:

Neither Republicans if they don't understand that it's important to apply carbon-taxes to imports to hurt such countries which continue to pollute the world.


CO2 is the only pollution now yet it is not even close to the worst?

cdimauro Quote:

See above: there are ways to block/limit it.

The problem with Repubblicans is that they want to continue to make business with China, as it is, because it's convenient for their lobbies.


Isn't it funny that Hunter Biden had all those China deals along with his Ukrainian natural gas deal but who is the big guy? Hillary Clinton was dealing with Uranium from Russia after she stopped her cattle futures trading. At least Nanci Pelosi's husband mostly trades domestically like with tech stocks ahead of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. Republicans have been more conservative in regards to China rather than cause uncertainty to businesses but they are aware of the security risks China poses if they don't clean their act up.

cdimauro Quote:

Science is NOT only about scientific method. That's your fault.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-declaration-global-climate-emergency/story?id=66774137

All crazy, right? Whereas Dyson and the few like him are all right, eh?


Scientific method and theories are the foundation of science.

I'm not worried about CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans are on pace to extinct themselves much sooner through other means like man made pandemics and nuclear wars.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 8:39:53
#212 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3621
From: Germany

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:
cdimauro Quote:

Do you classify ALL Democrats as extremists? Did I get it right?


The U.S. Democrat party as a whole are extremists.

Same as Republicans, then, since they vote aligned to the party. One notable example: Trump's impeachment.
Quote:
There are few exceptions in Congress with Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin being the only moderates left that think for themselves and don't vote the party line. They are incessantly attacked by members of their own Democrat party. There was Tulsi Gabbard who was viciously attacked by Hillary Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard Quote:

On January 22, 2013, Gabbard was unanimously elected to a four-year term as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. In September 2015, she criticized chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's decision to hold only six debates during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, compared with 26 in 2008 and 15 in 2004, and to exclude any candidate who participated in a non-DNC sanctioned debate from all future DNC-sanctioned debates. Gabbard released a statement about the heated and public disagreements surrounding the debates in a Facebook post in 2015.

Following her public criticisms of the debate process, Gabbard was reported to have been either "disinvited" or asked to "consider not coming" to the October 13, 2015, Democratic debate in Las Vegas. In an interview with The New York Times, she spoke of an unhealthy atmosphere, saying, "no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door" in taking the job. Gabbard privately wrote to Wasserman Schultz, accusing her of violating the DNC's duty of neutrality by favoring Hillary Clinton. This letter later became public in leaked emails published by WikiLeaks.

...

In October 2019, false and later corrected stories claimed that former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said that Russia was "grooming" a female Democrat to run as a third-party candidate, who would help President Donald Trump win reelection via a spoiler effect. The media understood Clinton to be referring to Gabbard, which Nick Merril, a Clinton spokesperson, seemed to confirm to CNN by saying: "If the nesting doll fits"; however, Gabbard repeatedly said she would not run as a third-party candidate in 2020 and did not do so. Gabbard was defended by a number of fellow 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, who rejected Clinton's suggestion that Gabbard was a Russian asset. Trump also defended Gabbard. Gabbard filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton in January 2020, but dropped it five months later. To represent her in her lawsuit against Clinton, Gabbard retained two attorneys with the Los Angeles law firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht and Davidoff Hutcher & Citron which, during the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, also had represented George Papadopoulos and Rudy Giuliani.


Hillary Clinton used the same smear tactics on Tulsi as she did on Trump falsely accusing both of being Russian assets (perhaps why Trump helped her). More than a few moderates have moved to the Republican party where they are generally accepted. There used to be more moderate and fiscally conservative "Blue Dog Coalition" Democrats primarily from the South but there numbers have dwindled and they usually vote the party line now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

President Biden passed himself off as being a moderate but he has been anything but. The Democrat party has moved far to the left and it is controlled by extremists though not everyone individually is an extremist.

This doesn't show that all Democrats are extremists. From what you reported:

Gabbard was defended by a number of fellow 2020 Democratic presidential candidates
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Oil and gas are NOT clean.


Sigh. Natural/propane/methane gas is very clean to burn and renewable replacements may not be much better. We also don't need to drop CO2 emissions to zero. You are vilifying part of the solution.

Your solution produces A LOT of CO2. Whereas renewable produces much LESS (due to their production). Those are facts...
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Neither Republicans if they don't understand that it's important to apply carbon-taxes to imports to hurt such countries which continue to pollute the world.


CO2 is the only pollution now yet it is not even close to the worst?

I never stated this. We were talking about the climate change and its effects, right? So, I was perfectly in topic.

And that's the reason why we need to ban coal, oil, gas, ASAP.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

See above: there are ways to block/limit it.

The problem with Repubblicans is that they want to continue to make business with China, as it is, because it's convenient for their lobbies.


Isn't it funny that Hunter Biden had all those China deals along with his Ukrainian natural gas deal but who is the big guy? Hillary Clinton was dealing with Uranium from Russia after she stopped her cattle futures trading. At least Nanci Pelosi's husband mostly trades domestically like with tech stocks ahead of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.

OK, and? Single persons can make mistakes.
Quote:
Republicans have been more conservative in regards to China rather than cause uncertainty to businesses but they are aware of the security risks China poses if they don't clean their act up.

That's because for Republicans the only important thing is the business. And nothing else.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Science is NOT only about scientific method. That's your fault.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-declaration-global-climate-emergency/story?id=66774137

All crazy, right? Whereas Dyson and the few like him are all right, eh?


Scientific method and theories are the foundation of science.

OK, nice that we reached to this point. Because not everything in science can make use of the scientific method and we've to resort to theories, unfortunately.
Quote:
I'm not worried about CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans are on pace to extinct themselves much sooner through other means like man made pandemics and nuclear wars.

I'm worried because the effects are absolutely evident and our planet is becoming more difficult to live on due to us.

Dyson thinks that we should adapt, but he doesn't understand what's the price that should be paid for this.

Hurricanes and Tornadoes are already much more frequent. Lands are becoming more arid, so that cannot be used for plantation. Many people are having less food and water, and many more are dying for this. Our poles are melting down increasing the level of the see and many cities in future will be submerged.

All of these are causing several billion of dollars of damages and death people. Every year.

But we should adapt, according to him...

Instead of spending NOW some billions and keeping the same climate, with all advantages that we have.

Last but not really least, we do NOT know where this big climate change will bring to us. Hence, we don't know if the humankind will be able to adapt. Or if only a minority could: the lucky AKA rich ones (which is perfectly in line with Republicans)...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 9:06:39
#213 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 2018
From: Cheshire, England

@matthey

Quote:
This is more sensationalism and conspiracy theories using buzz words like "big oil" against the energy industry by environmental extremists.


It’s a very dangerous world we’re heading to when one side will only believe info from one side/source of the argument and right off the other with this kind of view point.

Quote:
They can be inconsistent, not where the energy will be used requiring expensive infrastructure, can take up lots of land that can be used for other purposes and can produce pollution and CO2


Yes they can be, but you know what renewable is enable, more people to be off the grid and be energy independent, don’t have to worry about oil or gas prices they can help you when the unstable/inconsistent oil/gas grid has a power cut today! Not everyone can do it, but tech getting better all the time,
https://youtu.be/XZZisnQi7Ww

It is bad that the renewable / left side does feel like we got more extremist who protest, want to stop all oil and gas production. I’m not in that camp, I try and be the the camp that makes the most long term sense. Renewable won’t work every where and not a perfect solution, but they can do a hell of a lot more and it feels there a big push back to not allow them to.

in the uk recently fracking was tried to be given the go ahead, people would get up to £1,000 to allow it in your area, yet on shore wind is banned, new solar farm project on land to be banned (at the same time), plus a new windfall tax for just renewable sector, should these industry not be allowed the same market conditions? It feels very corrupt decision making to me.

That what annoy me most, corruption, it the thing that bring down empires and ruin markets and there a lot of it in the energy market.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nonefornow 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 16:55:35
#214 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 29-Jul-2013
Posts: 339
From: Greater Los Angeles Area

@MEGA_RJ_MICAL

Quote:
Right, but what are the A500 acceptable PSU values?


I am not sure. But, some year ago all the rage was around solar / light powered calculators.

Why can't we have a solar powered PSU with its battery?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 17:27:53
#215 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 2859
From: Trondheim, Norway

Let’s just make this extremely simple and easy ti understand - ALL AMERICANS ARE EXTREMISTS!! I mean, that’s why they are there in the first place.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nonefornow 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 18:00:39
#216 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 29-Jul-2013
Posts: 339
From: Greater Los Angeles Area

@kolla

Quote:
ALL AMERICANS ARE EXTREMISTS!! I mean, that’s why they are there in the first place.


And then yet, despite all that, there is war now in Europe.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 18:17:52
#217 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 2859
From: Trondheim, Norway

@Nonefornow

I didn’t say that Russians aren’t crazy as well, and it’s the exact same type of crazy that dominate in both.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 1-Nov-2022 20:47:20
#218 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3621
From: Germany

World close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies

According to Dyson we should "adapt" to all of this.

Maybe to discover that it's not possible, but then it's too late and you cannot go back...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 4:23:13
#219 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

cdimauro Quote:

World close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies

According to Dyson we should "adapt" to all of this.

Maybe to discover that it's not possible, but then it's too late and you cannot go back...


You are misrepresenting Freeman Dyson's position again. We believes in reducing CO2 but that we are not on the edge of global destruction and oil and gas should still be used. We should "adapt" by creating new technology to address the problem instead of a ridiculous zero CO2 emissions energy policy. The article you linked is more scare mongering. It took 75 years of industrialization, wars and abuse of Earth (forest, peat bog and other environmental destruction) for temps to rise about 1 degree Celsius. A study of the Jet Stream which has a major affect on weather shows large changes in the Jet Stream over the last 1000 years and the current Jet Stream is within the normal range and is predicted to stay withing the normal range until about 2060 even though it appears to have shifted toward the polls.

Is THIS the Real Reason Weather is Getting Wilder?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlkfMYgWUtA

The world needs a better energy plan and cooperation not hysteria, fear mongering and a zero emissions energy policy. We have had major setbacks.

o The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan caused nuclear power to be abandoned all over the world also due to fear mongering. There needed to be some reevaluation of where nuclear plants are built and getting rid of excess nuclear weapon stockpiles of Plutonium for rods was a bad idea. This was an older plant built in 1971 while the technology has dramatically improved.

o China has leveraged the cheapest possible energy sources so they have a competitive advantage. They are an industrialized nation expanding the use of coal which has about twice the CO2 footprint of natural gas.

o The war in Ukraine has caused the increased use of coal in Europe and other nations. War machines use a huge amount of fuel and have a large carbon footprint.

A good energy plan is simple. A large scale move to nuclear power and elimination of coal could cut CO2 emissions nearly in half. Industrial production and electric vehicles in large cities would have cheap electricity which would reduce CO2 emissions further. Nuclear power added on a large scale would go a long way to solving the global warming. There is no need to eliminate oil and gas as the combo is good for remote locations and poor nations.

I feel like many people don't understand and appreciate the importance of energy which they have taken for granted. We can see the effects of restricting oil and gas energy because that is what Russia has done due to the war in Ukraine. This is actually on a relatively small scale yet the result is higher prices and a shift to dirtier energy sources like coal that produce more CO2. Food prices have skyrocketed as fuel is used for most of farming activities, for fertilizer production and for transportation to markets. Transportation costs and heating costs are up (wood or coal may be used instead of natural gas). Industrial output is down and a nearly worldwide recession was quickly caused. There may be thousands of poor people in Africa and the Middle East who die of starvation and, if temperatures drop, poor people may freeze to death. All of this was after heavy investment by Europe in renewable energy which already drove up the price of energy in many countries. This energy problem is nothing compared to a zero CO2 emissions energy policy and even worse a zero CO2 emissions energy policy with no nuclear.

Energy costs as a percentage of average income (hypothetical)

0%-25%
Examples: unrestricted energy gives what we are used to
Result: everyone is happy and has lots of disposable income

25%-50%
Examples: Ukraine War oil and gas reductions, elimination of coal, high percentage of green energy
Result: protests of high energy prices and inflation, socialist nations running up debt to subsidize energy and keep citizens happy but causes more inflation, windfall taxes and political demands on energy companies reducing energy output, small scale starvation and freezing to death of the poor, industrial output drops and economies drop to recession levels, unemployment increases

50%-75%
Examples: zero CO2 emissions energy policy (no oil and gas), only nuclear and green energy
Result: mass protests and rioting against high energy prices and hyper inflation, socialist nations unable to subsidize energy anymore with hyper inflation, large scale starvation and freezing to death of the poor, industrial output collapses and economies drop into depression

75%-100%
Examples: zero CO2 emissions and no nuclear energy policy, green energy only
Result: governments collapse or overthrown and wars, fiat currencies worthless as precious metals and barter returns, populations devastated by war, violence/crime, starvation and freezing to death, industrial collapse ends machinery and green energy production, return to Dark Ages and majority of surviving population returns to subsistence farming

The higher percentages are my expectation of what would happen with a quick transition to the energy policy that environmental extremists want. A slower transition is unacceptable even though a quick transition may not be possible because of limited materials and limited scalability. Boosting oil and gas to reduce coal use and CO2 is unacceptable in the short term. Nuclear is unacceptable to many of them and takes years to build plants. Global destruction is imminent so we must return to the Dark Ages! It fits their anti-business socialist agenda but they may not like the result of their energy policies. Since the world is not aggressively building out nuclear energy and energy demand is growing, oil and gas seem like a good investment. We may be able to stop using coal but it will increase the demand for other energy and oil and gas are the quickest and cheapest replacements. Trying to eliminate oil and gas will make it very valuable and it will certainly fail without a major nuclear build out and likely with it. Green energy production will increase slowly and at a high cost but the technology will improve over time, time the extremists say we don't have. It would be nice if we were smarter about energy but it sure looks like we will have to learn the hard way and "adapt".

Last edited by matthey on 02-Nov-2022 at 04:33 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
MEGA_RJ_MICAL 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 4:33:48
#220 ]
Super Member
Joined: 13-Dec-2019
Posts: 1200
From: AMIGAWORLD.NET WAS ORIGINALLY FOUNDED BY DAVID DOYLE

PADDING

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle