• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by metalslug

  1. That 'founder' does make some curious comments; "...the geology of the UK and the densely populated nature of the British countryside made it impossible to set up a commercially viable fracking.." vs "There was an opportunity 10 years ago to look at this [fracking] sensibly, but that opportunity has now gone" . Does Cornelius believe that the geology and population density of the UK has had a marked change over 10 years? It would seem to me that the only change of significance within the last 10 years is his own employment, from fracking to "a geothermal consortium" that now sees him curiously promoting geothermal energy over fracking (in the UK). Who'd have guessed? I've been known to share the opinions of industry shills, although I'm somewhat surprised to see you doing the same.
  2. This kind of misinformation is used by both sides. These photos almost never have a reliable timestamp to indicate the position of the tides. Sure, sea levels have been rising as an overall average, around 6 inches over the last 100 years, although these photos appear to show a greater difference over 60 years, hence my scepticism.
  3. Yes, people of all ages can and will become ill and die from a great many causes including fracking and other fossil mining activities... and also from the processes and materials that are mined and produced for 'green' energy solutions. I doubt you're losing sleep over the (approx.) 40000 Congolese children mining Cobalt. Pick your battles, lots to choose from. In the larger picture, energy poverty is likely to harm or kill substantially more people than fracking.
  4. Newsflash: California is not Europe.
  5. Well; let's still call a spade, a spade, OK? Global warming may well exacerbate the problem by drying out vegetation more rapidly but it's misleading to assert that this is causing wildfires. In Europe, approx 9 out of 10 fires are ignited by human activities, such as arson, disposable barbeques, electricity lines, or littered glass, according to EU data. Warm weather very seldom results in spontaneous combustion of grasslands. Plenty of ways to prevent fires other than climate alarmism.
  6. I'm reminded of an old Seinfeld episode...
  7. Fair enough. I'll acknowledge that. 'Congress' can be both depending on context. The proper nouns I had used in my examples (William and Bill) do not denote defining characteristics of the person bearing the name (unlike 'he' and 'she'). That was rather my intended point.
  8. Nah mate. Australian powers shall not be vested in a congress of the United States. The U.S. is just the most commonly held example of congress but they don't own copyright on the word, else it would never be necessary for the word "congress" to be preceded with the letters "U.S." for context. Asked and answered.
  9. "U.S. Congress" is not a proper noun. It's two words; "U.S." is a proper noun, "congress" is a noun. In a hypothetical future it can change to "Chinese Congress", (if assuming they maintain a congress at all after invasion).
  10. It is absolutely different and, as grammar goes, you really should know better. You're equating pronouns (he, she) with proper nouns (William, Bill) . They are distinctly different because proper nouns have no definition and that's precisely why they are not included in most dictionaries. Proper nouns are expected to be subject to change. Nouns and pronouns not. You're feeding directly into the Matt Walsh argument that if a person can select their own pronoun as a defining characteristic then others would be equally entitled to choose their own adjectives (handsome & brilliant) and will expect you to address them as such. Grammar corruption cuts both ways.
  11. Maybe those people don't feel that a case meets definition criteria and also believe that this feeling entitles some legal exception. Y'know, like the definition of 'woman'. Curiously since the Roe v Wade topic resurfaced almost every progressive now seems to be quite sure what women (and women's legal rights) are. Welcome aboard.
  12. Can't make this stuff up. Forbid that science should misgender our anthropological relics (lest they offend the dead?). Those wider pelvic bones, those cranial traits... heresy!
  13. Is it cheaper than gas ?
  14. Ah, c'mon Brent. We already have a 'woke is a joke' thread. Facebook has 58 genders and doesn't include this one. If you're planning new threads for each one of these you find it's going to get awfully cluttered in here.
  15. We disagree on timeline here. I expect you believe that the climate gets REALLY bad within the lifetime of the current generation, hence your perception that conservatives only plan 'until they die'. I'll concede that a conservative approach amounts to 'kicking the can down the road' but then conservatives also believe that it's still a really long road ahead. No point debating the length of the road here, plenty of other threads for that topic, we retain our respective opinions. It's unrealistic to think that conservatives have a disregard for future generations, especially their own. For some it's akin to an imperial bloodline for them. A domestic carbon tax might certainly have some local bite but I'm a lot less convinced internationally. India and China are currently still regarded as 'developing' countries thereby granted some exemptions from emissions commitments and they will most certainly play that card for as long as they possibly can. There is also the option that they are currently using similar to ongoing trade between Russia, India and China despite sanctions, finding trading partners (anywhere they can) that will exempt a carbon tax. China is already preparing their economy for sanctions following from the inevitable invasion of Taiwan. They already know the economic consequence of either sanctions or a future carbon tax with the West and they don't care. While the West buys green solutions, they buy warfare solutions. Whoever has made the better preparation (as opposed to prevention) will be better positioned.
  16. That's your take now? Some typos? That's the surest sign that you have nothing left in the tank. Half the posts of everyone here have some grammatical slip somewhere. If you can convince yourself you're 'winning' by finding them then carry on...
  17. Yup, they have certainly being banging their heads a lot here. ..and that is an indicator why Phil believes his document 'contradicts everything I post'. He either hasn't read his own document, or hasn't read what I've posted, or fails to properly comprehend either.
  18. That's always been the hallmark of your posts here. Unsure and from an alternate reality. I can't help you there. The one recognised by the DOJ and other legal authorities. Have patience. He'll be found guilty of that charge.. or not.
  19. Wow, a whole 24? And what global percentage reduction have they collectively achieved in that time? Some reports suggest global emissions have gone up by more than 50%. Other than less smog over their own cities (your LA example) , do those 24 nations regard that as money well spent? In a perfect world their efforts might be admirable but until such time as the largest contributors (notably India, China, Russia) start feeling real domestic pressure to act then I don't expect it will happen. The money and effort they saved by not taking climate action has in part been spent on their war machines (China & Russia) and somehow that feels more concerning to me right now that the rest of the world has not. Those nations, right now, can do a lot more damage than climate change over the same period and have expressed a willingness to do so. The UK and parts of Europe have walked back on many of their COP26 commitments in view of Russian sanctions. Despite a heatwave in the UK right now it hasn't triggered them to again shut down all their coal powerplants today, as curiously electrical power is actually needed to run hospitals and cooling systems. It's fairly common sense to address the things that are going to matter most right now. You choose to interpret it as a contradiction because your analogy doesn't fit. How about "Lets take a collection to buy pizza for everyone in the room but only willing contributors need to pay regardless of how much you can afford to give. Then we'll do the same each day and every day for the next several years, and it will always be the same people expected to pay, and you'll gradually all go hungry anyway as the collection is insufficient to adequately feed everyone." Would it not be more effective by allowing the gluttonous freeloaders to go hungry until they actually decide to chip in on the next round? And since nobody is getting global pizza until then you could buy yourself some local burgers instead to make do until they come around.
  20. Which is not what is happening, hence it should not yet be a priority over more immediate concerns, especially for smaller contributors. You can recite that to yourself if it makes you feel better. Doesn't make it true. It's right up there with "anything that sounds bad" which of course can only have a conservative cause. I'm sure when your next pizza delivery is late there will also be a conservative to blame for that too.
  21. ?? That must be the reason why there are no females, blacks, trans people or scientists that vote Republican. I'll happily agree that Trump is unintelligent, narcissistic and unpresidential. Enough faults to discount him without needing to make additional shit up. The ludicrous lefty dogma that just gets invented on the fly is hilarious.
  22. Oh, that's hilarious. You're one of the people who believe that Aussies reducing their 1.3% of global emissions contribution will somehow reduce bushfires and flooding there? This ties with your AI 'all jobs are doomed' as the biggest whopper you've written yet. 'Scientist' indeed. OTOH building dams and flood levies will actually have a meaningful impact in NSW regardless of whether China, Russia or India reduce their emissions.
  23. The discussion of money came up when were discussing budgets for preparing for local change vs preventing global change. I advocated that the former should take precedence, at least for a decade or two, and within an Australian context I'm fine for government to keep using existing coal and LNG power as the best current cost vs reliability balance while they conserve budget to build dams, flood levies, military spending, national debt reduction, etc. Once those things are at an acceptable level (subjective opinion) then gradually swap coal power sites for nuclear, whereby some of the expenses are mitigated by existing infrastructure at those sites and modular reactor costs might even be lower than present. I accept that other countries may have different scenarios.
  24. That's fascinating but has fsckall to do with what you replied to. Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada have the largest reserves of Uranium. I'm sure we'll get by if governments are willing to commit. Edit to FYI; Namibia is friendly to the US at least.
  25. Well, except for offshore wind farms in a few places. Most significantly is that nuclear is also the most reliable type of power. That reliability comes at a premium price. For me, reliable energy (in the context of home and business electricity) should be the only kind that exists in a 1st-world economy. As to cost comparison; You're now reverting to older threads that have already been debated to exhaustion. The costs have lot of variables for comparative energy density and billeisele has mentioned some other aspects of 'green' expenses in the previous post. Also consider supply chain; Which countries have expertise in nuclear energy and/or large reserves of uranium and are they friendly to us ('the west')? Contrast that against solar panel fabrication, cobalt, zinc... How is our relationship with these suppliers in the current political climate? ..and how could that affect future pricing?