So, though you knew that this was a political topic, you chose to not mark it as such. Do you know why you did? Or was it unintentional? Just curious...
------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
IP: Logged
11:06 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
So, though you knew that this was a political topic, you chose to not mark it as such. Do you know why you did? Or was it unintentional? Just curious...
Because this is a CAR topic on a CAR forum about the possible restrictions that could be coming on CARS.
Because the proposed restrictions on cars is based on GLOBAL WARMING.
Christ, Jazzman, does EVERYTHING have to be explained to you?
I'm still waiting for your explanation about how this mismarked political thread about "global warming B.S." isn't really political after all. Please feel free to use as many long words as you want, in any combination. I only ask that you use some semblance of grammar (don't worry to much about spelling), and put some effort into the written construct such that I can parse some meaning from it.
After all, the whole point of writing for most is to get one's point across, right?
------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
IP: Logged
12:48 PM
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
I'm still waiting for your explanation about how this mismarked political thread about "global warming B.S." isn't really political after all. Please feel free to use as many long words as you want, in any combination. I only ask that you use some semblance of grammar (don't worry to much about spelling), and put some effort into the written construct such that I can parse some meaning from it.
After all, the whole point of writing for most is to get one's point across, right?
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
Yeah, there's a level of civility missing nowadays that used to exist. When people have a captive audience it seems to cause them to want to go off the deep end and start posting personal attacks against anyone they don't like, or won't agree with them, or had a different opinion than them, and on and on. Being civil takes actual work, it doesn't just happen by itself. Typified by innuendo, sarcasm, personally-directed character attacks and insults, etc, this kind of behavior only serves to drive down the quality of discourse, as you found out.
[This message has been edited by Scottzilla79 (edited 03-30-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:50 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
So, though you knew that this was a political topic, you chose to not mark it as such. Do you know why you did? Or was it unintentional? Just curious...
Is that sarcasm or genuine curiosity? Don't answer that, we all already know the answer.
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
The thread title you wrote was Another reason why I'm opposed to global warming B.S.
Just so you know...
Global Warming is an environmental concern that doesn't necessarily involve politics. This topic involved people banning cars in the UK because of Global Warming.
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
I'm still waiting for your explanation about how this mismarked political thread about "global warming B.S." isn't really political after all. Please feel free to use as many long words as you want, in any combination. I only ask that you use some semblance of grammar (don't worry to much about spelling), and put some effort into the written construct such that I can parse some meaning from it.
After all, the whole point of writing for most is to get one's point across, right?
What DO you read? Because I can find disagreements and arguments in ANY topic. It's called having an opinion.
Cars-- GM lovers may not like Ford, or more commonly American car lovers don't like imports. Fun stuff-- If I talk about a magical land where bacon is found everywhere, would not someone say that no such place exists, and therefore it becomes a debatable topic? Hobbies-- Different people find different hobbies ridiculous. I like Pokemon, and frequently get crap for it. Computers-- Apple or Microsoft? Religion-- Atheist vs. Christianity vs. Judaism vs. etc. Sell/Buy/Trade-- someone doesn't think you're being fair in your prices.
Gosh I'm all for civility but GROW UP. This ISN'T your forum, and you cannot run from discrepancy your entire life. Not to mention "Please feel free to use as many long words as you want, in any combination. I only ask that you use some semblance of grammar (don't worry to much about spelling), and put some effort into the written construct such that I can parse some meaning from it." just screams that you think you're better than everyone else. You aren't. We are all individuals with differing opinions that may not agree with each other all of the time; and I found O/T a lot more peaceful WITHOUT you constantly berating people and acting as some kind of moderator. Cliff is the only moderator here, in case you didn't know that.
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
Ah, more name-calling...C'mon, be better than that.
Would you say that same exact thing to someone's face? What if he was smaller than you? Bigger than you? Your father? Child? Best friend?
And who (or what) is "they", anyway?
I've been called Republican Scum COUNTLESS times... to my face. I've been called unbelievable names for my religious and political beliefs, but I don't care. It's an opinion, and I can fight that opinion with facts. I try to maintain civility as you do, but I don't do it by creating incivility.
Your tactics are questionable at best, and you really need to rethink your impact on this forum. I appreciate the heart behind what you are doing, but this thread is your worst act yet besides your deleted train on cliffw. Go back and read this thread, and how you more or less called the OP stupid for not being able to form sentences with proper grammar.
I apologized for calling you out in the closed thread, but this is just ridiculous. You need to get this.
There are two ways to stop seeing me posting this way in political threads: Mark them political so that I don't see them, or ban me. I don't see the latter happening (though Cliff could do it with a mouseclick, I'm sure). It seems to me that the former method require the least amount of effort on the part of the small group, of which Fierobear is most definitely a part, who insist on regurgitating political attack posts over and over on this forum. One simple mouse click is all it would take.
I used to spend a lot of effort trying to find something to like and respect in everyone, even those who called me stalker, pedophile, communist, murderer, Nazi, terrorist, and much, much worse just because some of my views lean toward the liberal side of moderate. There's only so many years (yes, years) of being personally attacked that I could take. It actually damaged my health. That's why I left and cleaned out all my non-technical posts. In the years I've been gone I had some serious changes to my thinking patterns, enough that I decided to come back.
1. Cyberbullies are no different than physical bullies. They use words like other bullies use fists, to damage, overpower, cow, and otherwise dominate and push their ideology on others. The ultimate goal is, as always, power and dominance, nothing more. I've decided to not be bullied anymore. 2. The key to someone's words getting to me was respect, which also led to trust, and in turn led to susceptability to being hurt by words. I'd always had respect for all others, it was drummed into me in the Scouts. It took a long time to figure this out. Was it a weakness? Yes, and no. It was more like a lock that some had a key to that I didn't want to let in. 3. I figured out how to turn respect off. More accurately, I figured out how to separate the respect for people from the respect for their words and actions and to turn off the latter. That took the better part of a year, but once I figured it out it was easy. I still have respect for most people, with few well-earned exceptions. 4. I've decided to make a stand for civility, and this forum is where I chose. PFF was the only forum I'd ever participated in until I left, so I had no idea that it could be better. Since then I've become members of forums that are civil, polite, and full of meaning and friendship. These forums all have one thing in common: They either don't allow politics (and more importantly, the kind of name-calling personal attack politics that have become so standard since the late 1990's) or they allow users to block posts and/or threads from view. This allows the majority of users to block the minority that always seems so intent on twisting everything to politics and that can't seem to carry on a civil conversation without invoking mockery and personal attacks with Every. Single. Post. These forums were a real breath of fresh air because they are sorry breeding grounds for assholery and destructive/divisive/rancorous politics. PFF meant enough to me that I decided to take a run at making the air less stinky here.
I've been guilty of throwing in with the rest of them in the past; Getting sucked in that mode of thinking was much like the frog that happily boils to death because the temperature rose too slowly for him to notice. It takes work to not get sucked along with the sewage, and though I'll slip occasionally it'll be because I wasn't trying hard enough, not because I'm no longer a lazy SOB that didn't know or care any better.
My tactics are simple, in fact I've stated them publicly many times already. I'll cajole, admonish, call out, point out, comment on, etc, people who insist on trying to drive non-political threads political, or mismarking political threads as non-political. Trust me, I'm not trying to be nor would I want to be a moderator, because if I was there's about 40 people that would disappear off this forum. Forty out of twenty thousand, what's that, 2/1000ths of the membership. Oh yeah, that would be nice, but it's just a dream, a happy one at that. Meanwhile, like turning the Titanic, one bit at a time...
IP: Logged
07:20 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yeah, there's a level of civility missing nowadays that used to exist. When people have a captive audience it seems to cause them to want to go off the deep end and start posting personal attacks against anyone they don't like, or won't agree with them, or had a different opinion than them, and on and on. Being civil takes actual work, it doesn't just happen by itself. Typified by innuendo, sarcasm, personally-directed character attacks and insults, etc, this kind of behavior only serves to drive down the quality of discourse, as you found out.
It proves itself.
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
There are two ways to stop seeing me posting this way in political threads: Mark them political so that I don't see them, or ban me. I don't see the latter happening (though Cliff could do it with a mouseclick, I'm sure). It seems to me that the former method require the least amount of effort on the part of the small group, of which Fierobear is most definitely a part, who insist on regurgitating political attack posts over and over on this forum.
Wow. There is another way which you evidently are completely incapable of comprehending (are those enough "long words", or do you require additional verbosity?).
quote
One simple mouse click is all it would take.
You could take your own advice, and HIT THE BACK BUTTON ON YOUR BROWSER. One simple mouse click is all it would take.
Geez.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 03-30-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:57 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yeah. Personally I feel lucky to be living between ice ages.
Damn straight. Our species and civilization has had the chance to grow and thrive due to the fact that we are living in an interglacial period. Hopefully, we will become adept at macro engineering and true climate control before the next ice age comes.
There are two ways to stop seeing me posting this way in political threads: Mark them political so that I don't see them, or ban me. I don't see the latter happening (though Cliff could do it with a mouseclick, I'm sure). It seems to me that the former method require the least amount of effort on the part of the small group, of which Fierobear is most definitely a part, who insist on regurgitating political attack posts over and over on this forum. One simple mouse click is all it would take.
I used to spend a lot of effort trying to find something to like and respect in everyone, even those who called me stalker, pedophile, communist, murderer, Nazi, terrorist, and much, much worse just because some of my views lean toward the liberal side of moderate. There's only so many years (yes, years) of being personally attacked that I could take. It actually damaged my health. That's why I left and cleaned out all my non-technical posts. In the years I've been gone I had some serious changes to my thinking patterns, enough that I decided to come back.
1. Cyberbullies are no different than physical bullies. They use words like other bullies use fists, to damage, overpower, cow, and otherwise dominate and push their ideology on others. The ultimate goal is, as always, power and dominance, nothing more. I've decided to not be bullied anymore. 2. The key to someone's words getting to me was respect, which also led to trust, and in turn led to susceptability to being hurt by words. I'd always had respect for all others, it was drummed into me in the Scouts. It took a long time to figure this out. Was it a weakness? Yes, and no. It was more like a lock that some had a key to that I didn't want to let in. 3. I figured out how to turn respect off. More accurately, I figured out how to separate the respect for people from the respect for their words and actions and to turn off the latter. That took the better part of a year, but once I figured it out it was easy. I still have respect for most people, with few well-earned exceptions. 4. I've decided to make a stand for civility, and this forum is where I chose. PFF was the only forum I'd ever participated in until I left, so I had no idea that it could be better. Since then I've become members of forums that are civil, polite, and full of meaning and friendship. These forums all have one thing in common: They either don't allow politics (and more importantly, the kind of name-calling personal attack politics that have become so standard since the late 1990's) or they allow users to block posts and/or threads from view. This allows the majority of users to block the minority that always seems so intent on twisting everything to politics and that can't seem to carry on a civil conversation without invoking mockery and personal attacks with Every. Single. Post. These forums were a real breath of fresh air because they are sorry breeding grounds for assholery and destructive/divisive/rancorous politics. PFF meant enough to me that I decided to take a run at making the air less stinky here.
I've been guilty of throwing in with the rest of them in the past; Getting sucked in that mode of thinking was much like the frog that happily boils to death because the temperature rose too slowly for him to notice. It takes work to not get sucked along with the sewage, and though I'll slip occasionally it'll be because I wasn't trying hard enough, not because I'm no longer a lazy SOB that didn't know or care any better.
My tactics are simple, in fact I've stated them publicly many times already. I'll cajole, admonish, call out, point out, comment on, etc, people who insist on trying to drive non-political threads political, or mismarking political threads as non-political. Trust me, I'm not trying to be nor would I want to be a moderator, because if I was there's about 40 people that would disappear off this forum. Forty out of twenty thousand, what's that, 2/1000ths of the membership. Oh yeah, that would be nice, but it's just a dream, a happy one at that. Meanwhile, like turning the Titanic, one bit at a time...
This post makes a lot of sense.
Thank you very much for explaining to me why you came to this, and actually responding to specific points in my post. Your posts make a lot more sense now, and I'm serious when I say that I appreciate this. Your heart is set in the right place, and I think your posts, however unconventional they are, could cause a positive change after stirring the pot.
However, I will say I didn't like that you quit respecting everyone. Respect for me is something that is there from the start, and you have to LOSE that respect. Because you should believe that every person has individual pasts that led them to their beliefs, no matter how wrong or right you think they are, and that deserves respect. Then, if they lose respect by being disrespectful or consistently uncivil, the respect is lost.
I think you would make a lot bigger difference here if you employed tactics that didn't involve cajoling or admonishing anyone, but you're free to do things your own way.
Again, thanks for the response.
IP: Logged
08:00 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
There are two ways to stop seeing me posting this way in political threads: Mark them political so that I don't see them, or ban me. I don't see the latter happening (though Cliff could do it with a mouseclick, I'm sure).
...
1. Cyberbullies are no different than physical bullies. They use words like other bullies use fists, to damage, overpower, cow, and otherwise dominate and push their ideology on others. The ultimate goal is, as always, power and dominance, nothing more. I've decided to not be bullied anymore.
So, you decided to become that which you hate with your "either do what I want or ban me, and banning me isn't going to happen" attitude.
FYI, I'm not saying the the climate isn't or doesn't change. I'm saying that mankind is NOT driving the change in any meaningful way.
I'd say we are changing it. You take a complex system, change a variable drastically then see what happens. The complex system doesn't just keep going about its business. There's pretty much always an effect. Compare Earth, now and 3,000 years ago. There are BIG differences between the two, mostly in that today there's 6 billion+ people on the planet, and all of them impacting the planet in their own ways. You can't honestly believe that us all being here, doing what we do, has no effect at all on the planet?
This past winter has to be the weirdest one I've ever experienced. You can't just say that because it was cold and snowy, that there's no global warming. Global warming itself is probably to blame for this winter. Extra heat in the atmosphere means that more water vapor evaporates and becomes clouds, you add that to cold weather and you get abundant snow. You can talk to my relatives in Minnesota, they know that the colder it is usually the less snow there is. Best temperatures for snow are from about 0-30*F. So a little bit warmer + more moisture = more snow. It snowed almost a foot here in January, I've never seen it snow that much in a single day. Also, cold weather in the US this winter has been attributed to an area of high pressure that moved north over Alaska. With a massive, abnormal ridge like that sitting over Alaska, an equal abnormal trough developed over the rest of North America. All that too can be attributed to global warming.
Not to mention this spring. Pollen and warmer temperatures hit here in Georgia about 2-3 weeks early. Its as if winter turned to spring in just a day. Same thing happened when fall transitioned to winter, I remember it was mid 80's and hot enough to run A/C the week before Halloween. Then when November hit it was like instant winter. Its as if the seasons have become more abrupt because winter is being "held back" by the warmer months, and its not like its getting weaker, if anything its getting more intense, and a bit shorter.
Should we do anything about global warming? Personally, even though I think it exists and we're to blame, I don't really care. Its like voting, whatever you do as an individual won't change much, so why bother? My '88 GT isn't emissions legal and I like it that way. I don't want kids and I don't really care about the future of humanity anyways. It'll probably be horrible and no matter what I do it won't matter anyways so I might as well enjoy my time here .
------------------
[This message has been edited by Tinton (edited 03-30-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:57 PM
Mar 31st, 2011
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
This past winter has to be the weirdest one I've ever experienced.
Not to mention this spring.
I don't mean this to be rude or harsh, but you just disqualified yourself from being considered seriously in a global warming discussion. Don't feel bad. You are in good company in making statements like this.
IP: Logged
10:09 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
However, I will say I didn't like that you quit respecting everyone. Respect for me is something that is there from the start, and you have to LOSE that respect. Because you should believe that every person has individual pasts that led them to their beliefs, no matter how wrong or right you think they are, and that deserves respect. Then, if they lose respect by being disrespectful or consistently uncivil, the respect is lost.
Again, thanks for the response.
The members that have lost my respect did it through years of constant effort on their part. If they want it back they can earn it back, but I somehow doubt they care. I honestly have no concerns whatsoever about how they feel about me, none at all. It's freeing to be able to feel that way, it really is. Someone can't hurt you with words if that person has no value or meaning whatsoever to you. The people that I marked off in the category of "Don't know them, don't care to know them, mean nothing to me at all" are people that do the semantic version of what that scrawny bully was doing to the fat kid in that video. Jab, jab, poke, slap, punch. They're the worst kind of people, IMHO, deserving of the descriptor "human" by sole virtue of DNA and nothing more.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand: The EU isn't going to ban cars, the whole thing was essentially a Chicken Little panic attack. This thread was really about global warming but Fierobear didn't seem to think the existing threads were good enough, and chose to not mark it correctly as politics so that he could panic to a broader audience. That seems to sum it up fairly succinctly.
IP: Logged
10:47 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I'd say we are changing it. You take a complex system, change a variable drastically then see what happens. The complex system doesn't just keep going about its business. There's pretty much always an effect. Compare Earth, now and 3,000 years ago. There are BIG differences between the two, mostly in that today there's 6 billion+ people on the planet, and all of them impacting the planet in their own ways. You can't honestly believe that us all being here, doing what we do, has no effect at all on the planet?
You're generalizing what I said. I said that we are having a negligible effect on the *climate*. There is no question we're having an impact on various ecosystems like the rain forest. But not the climate. It's like peeing in the ocean, and worrying about that causing sea level rise. The effect is negligible.
quote
This past winter has to be the weirdest one I've ever experienced. You can't just say that because it was cold and snowy, that there's no global warming. Global warming itself is probably to blame for this winter. Extra heat in the atmosphere means that more water vapor evaporates and becomes clouds, you add that to cold weather and you get abundant snow. You can talk to my relatives in Minnesota, they know that the colder it is usually the less snow there is. Best temperatures for snow are from about 0-30*F. So a little bit warmer + more moisture = more snow. It snowed almost a foot here in January, I've never seen it snow that much in a single day. Also, cold weather in the US this winter has been attributed to an area of high pressure that moved north over Alaska. With a massive, abnormal ridge like that sitting over Alaska, an equal abnormal trough developed over the rest of North America. All that too can be attributed to global warming.
It wasn't just the snow, it was the temperature. There were a lot of record cold temperatures set. The basic theory to global warming is an enhanced greenhouse effect, with the idea being that the extra CO2 (along with other factors) will cause more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere and *not* radiated back into space. You can't get an increase in cold air out of that system. It's like saying that closing the windows of a greenhouse will cause more hot AND more cold because you're changing the conditions. It's absurd, and goes against the basics of their theory.
IP: Logged
11:01 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by JazzMan: Anyway, back to the topic at hand: The EU isn't going to ban cars, the whole thing was essentially a Chicken Little panic attack. This thread was really about global warming but Fierobear didn't seem to think the existing threads were good enough, and chose to not mark it correctly as politics so that he could panic to a broader audience.
So, you asked for evidence beyond the article, which I provided. It was from an official European agency, which you evidently ignored based on your "chicken little panic attack" comment.
quote
That seems to sum it up fairly succinctly.
Only if one uses some kind of twisted illogic, of which you seem to be a master.
IP: Logged
11:07 AM
PFF
System Bot
Apr 13th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
California Governor Jerry Brown will sign a bill today which will raise the required amount of costly renewable energy for electric generation in the Golden State to 33% while Texas Governor Rick Perry is likely grinning from ear to ear.
Texas and other business-friendly Western states such as Arizona and Utah, stand to benefit from California's latest payoff to the green lobby. The bill boosts the electric renewable energy standard from its current 20% to 33% by the year 2020, and California consumers and businesses will be stuck with the additional cost. Businesses will have one more reason to leave California or to avoid going there.
This legislation is part of a larger California program to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) to help keep the planet cool (the planet appears to be cooling off lately anyway). California will soon have a carbon cap and trade program proposed by the California Air Resources Board under existing legislation. (A judge has temporarily halted implementation due to a lawsuit by an environmental organization claiming that it does not go far enough.) Cap and trade is, of course, a tax on fossil fuel use. The Board has also proposed a low carbon standard for gasoline. All of these programs have the undesirable effect of killing jobs due to higher energy prices.
Electric rates in California are already among the highest in the country and are set to increase 28% in real dollar terms by 2020 compared to rates in 2008 according to a study by the California Public Utilities Commission. About 11% is attributed to additional renewable energy costs and the rest, about 17%, was going to happen anyway due in large part to a proposal by the State Water Resources Control Board to forcibly retire coastal power plants that use ocean water for cooling.
The actual electric rates could be higher for several reasons. The House Republicans have proposed to slash subsidies of all kinds, including renewable energy, which would increase the net cost of building and operating new plants.
The study projects that wind will provide about 30% of the renewable energy mix using results from wind power computer modeling performed by the Department of Energy. However, the real world experience of the United Kingdom with wind power offers a lesson. A report by the John Muir Trust, a UK organization dedicated to the protection of wilderness, states:
Stuart Young, author of the report, said, "Over the two-year period studied in this report, the metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK.
California's regulatory climate hinders the construction of any facility including power plants and transmission lines. Environmental groups have fought solar plants and transmission lines using regulations that largely favor those opposed to projects. If renewable energy projects are blocked, then supply will be reduced and rates will go up.
The intermittent nature of renewable energy, especially wind, means that large amounts of spinning reserve (power plants online and ready to ramp up at short notice) will be needed to make up for shortfalls if the wind suddenly dies down for example. To help cut the amount of high cost of spinning reserve, government bureaucrats propose to require (voluntarily or otherwise) electricity users to install devices which shut down equipment (such as air conditioners or industrial equipment) on short notice. The signals could be transmitted over a smart grid directly to the equipment to reduce demand. This program, called "demand response," would impose additional difficulties for businesses if they suddenly had to shut down due to the vagaries of the weather. Residents would also object to the government telling them when to operate their appliances.
As mentioned above, the State Water Resources Control Board is on a parallel path to retire coastal power plants that use ocean water for cooling. The Board would prevent any future construction of coastal plants and phase out operation of those currently online. California's nuclear power plants appear to be in the cross hairs of the Board as well. Nuclear power provides about 11% of California's generation and if shut down, the power generated would likely be replaced by the latest combined cycle natural gas fired plants. Nuclear power plants do not count towards reducing GHGs, but if shut down, there will be a net increase in GHG emissions due to increased carbon emissions by the replacement power.
Renewable energy has become less attractive economically since the price of natural gas has fallen dramatically which makes natural gas fired plants very competitive. California could have chosen this option yet its program is driven by an allegiance to its powerful green lobby, not to economic reality.
The green lobby has some interesting bedfellows. Besides the usual environmental groups and unions, some wealthy Silicon Valley venture capitalists have lobbied for green energy. These venture capitalists have invested in renewable energy projects which are lucrative since they have generous government subsidies and the new 33% renewable standard means that they will have a guaranteed market. This raises the question of whether the term "capitalist" is still appropriate since they are now feeding at the public trough.
The California economy lags the rest of the country in recovering from the recession yet its political class continues to erect roadblocks to recovery. Without increased economic activity, the state will continue to struggle with its deficit which is currently about $25 Billion.
A perfect storm is brewing since the higher electric rates will kick in sometime over the next five years which is about the time when California will have to begin paying off its huge unfunded government pension liabilities. California businesses and residents will ultimately have to pay for both.
As Texas Governor Rick Perry enjoys his state's new economic advantage over California, perhaps he could at least celebrate with a bottle of California champagne.
However, the real world experience of the United Kingdom with wind power offers a lesson. A report by the John Muir Trust, a UK organization dedicated to the protection of wilderness, states:
Stuart Young, author of the report, said, "Over the two-year period studied in this report, the metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK.
Here's a rebuttal to that study.
quote
The report is therefore only representative of the performance of onshore wind, with a strong geographical focus on Scotland.
This geographical limitation means that conclusions on the performance and variability of wind generation cannot be generalised across the UK. Variability at a UK wide level would be 'smoothed' by the wider geographical spread of all wind farms.
An issue also surrounds the calculation of the total installed capacity of metered wind farms. The national grid updates this figure several times a year; yet, each period's figure will include capacity expected to come online, but not yet generating power. Further, new turbines may also come online before they are included in the total capacity figure. These differences between actual and stated capacity will distort calculated wind performance to appear better or worse than reality
It doesn't matter. All of California's wind power is ONshore. I've seen NO plans for OFFshore windmills. Good luck getting THAT past the NIMBYs in this state.
Newf, shhhh, don't use the word "rebuttal", it has a completely NSFW meaning to fierobear...
It's not much of a rebuttal. Note the following:
"The report was looking solely at wind power that is 'visible' and metered by the national grid, which accounts for around half of total UK wind power generation. Offshore wind farms and some onshore farms that are connected onto the distribution network are not metered."
"Further, issues around measuring the installed capacity and grid infrastructure limitations make it difficult to measure metered wind turbine performance with certainty."
In other words, the report doesn't cover all of the wind power, only a portion.
IP: Logged
10:51 AM
Gridlock Member
Posts: 2874 From: New Westminster, BC Canada Registered: Apr 2002
I don't say this to be mean, but you are getting really annoying.
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
There are two ways to stop seeing me posting this way in political threads: Mark them political so that I don't see them, or ban me. I don't see the latter happening (though Cliff could do it with a mouseclick, I'm sure). It seems to me that the former method require the least amount of effort on the part of the small group, of which Fierobear is most definitely a part, who insist on regurgitating political attack posts over and over on this forum. One simple mouse click is all it would take.
I used to spend a lot of effort trying to find something to like and respect in everyone, even those who called me stalker, pedophile, communist, murderer, Nazi, terrorist, and much, much worse just because some of my views lean toward the liberal side of moderate. There's only so many years (yes, years) of being personally attacked that I could take. It actually damaged my health. That's why I left and cleaned out all my non-technical posts. In the years I've been gone I had some serious changes to my thinking patterns, enough that I decided to come back.
1. Cyberbullies are no different than physical bullies. They use words like other bullies use fists, to damage, overpower, cow, and otherwise dominate and push their ideology on others. The ultimate goal is, as always, power and dominance, nothing more. I've decided to not be bullied anymore. 2. The key to someone's words getting to me was respect, which also led to trust, and in turn led to susceptability to being hurt by words. I'd always had respect for all others, it was drummed into me in the Scouts. It took a long time to figure this out. Was it a weakness? Yes, and no. It was more like a lock that some had a key to that I didn't want to let in. 3. I figured out how to turn respect off. More accurately, I figured out how to separate the respect for people from the respect for their words and actions and to turn off the latter. That took the better part of a year, but once I figured it out it was easy. I still have respect for most people, with few well-earned exceptions. 4. I've decided to make a stand for civility, and this forum is where I chose. PFF was the only forum I'd ever participated in until I left, so I had no idea that it could be better. Since then I've become members of forums that are civil, polite, and full of meaning and friendship. These forums all have one thing in common: They either don't allow politics (and more importantly, the kind of name-calling personal attack politics that have become so standard since the late 1990's) or they allow users to block posts and/or threads from view. This allows the majority of users to block the minority that always seems so intent on twisting everything to politics and that can't seem to carry on a civil conversation without invoking mockery and personal attacks with Every. Single. Post. These forums were a real breath of fresh air because they are sorry breeding grounds for assholery and destructive/divisive/rancorous politics. PFF meant enough to me that I decided to take a run at making the air less stinky here.
I've been guilty of throwing in with the rest of them in the past; Getting sucked in that mode of thinking was much like the frog that happily boils to death because the temperature rose too slowly for him to notice. It takes work to not get sucked along with the sewage, and though I'll slip occasionally it'll be because I wasn't trying hard enough, not because I'm no longer a lazy SOB that didn't know or care any better.
My tactics are simple, in fact I've stated them publicly many times already. I'll cajole, admonish, call out, point out, comment on, etc, people who insist on trying to drive non-political threads political, or mismarking political threads as non-political. Trust me, I'm not trying to be nor would I want to be a moderator, because if I was there's about 40 people that would disappear off this forum. Forty out of twenty thousand, what's that, 2/1000ths of the membership. Oh yeah, that would be nice, but it's just a dream, a happy one at that. Meanwhile, like turning the Titanic, one bit at a time...
IP: Logged
10:54 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
for me - the main benifit of renewables for electricity generation is that it is one more step to NOT having to deal with the middle east
the middle east was irrellevant thruout history - well, except for religion. until: oil
to me - renewables is NOT about GW - it is about sending the middle east back to irrelevance
you can make all the excuses you want about where we get our oil - but as long as we create demand for oil - the middle east thrives due to our demand.
IP: Logged
11:11 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Pyrthian: to me - renewables is NOT about GW - it is about sending the middle east back to irrelevance
I'm OK with renewables as long as it is the free market that is doing it. When government MANDATES it, like our governor just did, that's where the trouble starts. These mandates are now often driven by "fighting global warming."
.
