Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 27 2012,00:13)|
|Wow! Again I say Wow!! Dembski has just started one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on UD. I'm posting this from an iPad so I'm not going to post any URLs, but the title is "The Promise and (under) performance of green technologies--and the lesson for us".|
It's a weird graphic showing the hopeless ineffiencies of green technology and how we face certain ruin if we continue to invest in them, use of compact fluorescent light bulbs has doubled in two years, but that's bad because they have mercury in them and recycling isn't convenient enough and besides, they'll never replace incandescents anyway and Eco-engineering won't work for at least decades and it costs too much to beam energy from space and the green jobs debacle has been a debacle and Obamas green jobs initiative was an expensive failure and --- well it doesn't really come to any conclusion except we're obviously all fucked.
This is all presented as a warning to IDiots of how easily ideology subverts science.
OK Dr. Dr., you obviously have a lot on your mind.
But none of the above is the weird part. That's found in the replies where KF warns us that new technologies are often ineffective at first, as happened with cars, airplanes and computers and a similar chart made at the right time would have made them look bad too and we really need alternative energy sources and he lists a few.
Then Jerad chimes in, agreeing with KF and warning us not to use non-renewables and "ignore the hype, look to the science" and finally Tembow writes, "agree with above posts. Not time to start bashing them yet. Early days"
DocDoc, do you realize that your tard has gotten so smelly that you have actually lost KF!?!? The wind of the carribean is now defending science against your blather! You've just intellectually cluster fucked yourself! I didn't even know it was possible to blow it so ignominiously as you have just done.
And of course, it's a Friday. Classic meltdown!
Wow. Dembski posts a bunch of misleading anti-green crap, like GM losing $49,000 for every volt sold which is a comically bad misunderstanding of money and numbers, in a post warning about letting ideology interfere with science. How's that for irony?
Then his commenters take him to school:
kairosfocusOctober 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Quick note, in a rush: promising technologies often have teething troubles, and commercial success is never a given in early days. The same happened with aircraft, cars and computers — a similar chart made at the right time would have made these look v bad, too. Alternative energy technologies are needed [the ongoing annual energy purchases subsidy to Jihad alone is a decisive consideration, much less the issues that traditional energy technologies are unsustainable . . . ], and I think a serious look at geothermal energy, modern nukes (pebble bed modular reactors and molten salt reactors have looked good to me), OTEC, and good old fashioned hydro are well worth a look. Wind has limited utility and so far, solar PV. We need fuels, and I think algae, butanol [a gasoline substitute], biodiesel and long run hydrogen are well worth a look. KF
JeradOctober 26, 2012 at 3:21 pm
I quite agree with KF, at the very least it make sense to NOT use up non-renewable energy sources if possible. It’s always a good idea not to pollute if you can avoid it. And you never want to put all your eggs in one basket as the saying goes.
Ignore the hype, look to the science. Many ‘green’ things are faddish and not viable. But it’s always worth looking.
tembewOctober 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm
agree with above posts. Not time to start bashing them yet. Early days
Kairosfocus, your notions on ID are complete junk, but that comment above is pretty much 100% correct.
Re: solar, btw, the way to go is Solar Thermal Energy Years ago I either calculated or read that you could switch the entire US electrical system from coal/nuclear to Solar Thermal for roughly the cost of the Iraq War. Sad that we have a public that doesn't understand, value, and demand that.