Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 352

Thread: Biden kills Keystone XL permit.... again

  1. #226 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,062
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    More whataboutism, which seems to be all that you Reichtards have any more. You lost all your arguments about why we need the Keystone, so now you're just flinging your porridge to see what sticks to the walls. lol



    (It's spelled aneurysm and thanks, already had one of those.)
    So, you cannot answer the questions and choose instead to use a combination of change the subject and ad hominem... How typical.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to T. A. Gardner For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-25-2021)

  3. #227 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,062
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    The risk to birds, bats, and wildlife from petroleum extraction, nuclear, and mining is far, far, far higher than the risk posed by wind turbines.
    I read the paper. Bet you didn't. Sovacool makes a fatal error in his paper. He considers the entirety of both nuclear and oil use to include all ancillary and production cycle effects while only considering the in use risk for wind turbines. Wind power, like any other technology involves considerable mining and use of things like heavy metals, rare earths, etc. So, the paper is badly flawed to show what the author wants it to show.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to T. A. Gardner For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-25-2021)

  5. #228 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I read the paper. Bet you didn't. Sovacool makes a fatal error in his paper. He considers the entirety of both nuclear and oil use to include all ancillary and production cycle effects while only considering the in use risk for wind turbines. Wind power, like any other technology involves considerable mining and use of things like heavy metals, rare earths, etc. So, the paper is badly flawed to show what the author wants it to show.
    Not to mention that they need dispatchable power as backup, which invariably means gas, coal or at a stretch, nuclear. To recover lanthanides like dysprosium and neodymium requires huge amounts of energy. Areas of north China have turned into a dystopian wasteland, processing one ton of rare earths results in 2000 tonnes of radioactive toxic waste.
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 01-25-2021 at 12:26 AM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    anatta (01-25-2021)

  7. #229 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    So, you cannot answer the questions and choose instead to use a combination of change the subject and ad hominem... How typical.
    That's our Joanie, the bullshit queen of JPP. She should stick to dogfish dissecting, proper science is not for her!

  8. #230 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,021
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,512 Times in 16,974 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    I can't help you if you have poor reading comprehension skills. You might want to read my earlier post before you ask stupid questions about how much it will cost to charge an electric car with solar panels.

    I never said it would be totally free of costs. I said it would not require gasoline, spark plugs or radiator and transmission flushes. Because of regenerative braking, brake servicing will be less but not non existent. It pays to live in a state that doesn't require annual vehicle inspections because everyone here is liberal and keeps their cars in good shape without the government forcing them to.

    A short in the system from a hard rain storm or driving through a deep puddle? ROFLMAO.. Do you know anything about cars in general, let alone electric vehicles. Electric cars have a computer but then so do any other car manufactured since 1990. Once you get past the computer, an electric car is much simpler to maintain than an ICE. I'll bet the mechanics love it when you come in after every rain storm because you car stopped working.
    My reading skills are just fine. I don't need your help. How many solar panels would be needed to maintain enough current to charge 3 cars such large batteries on cloudy days on end? How much do solar panels cost? How much room will they take up? You want to take up your whole yard with solar panels? Not me. I have a nice lawn.

    No, there are no fluids or ignition components to maintain. So only liberals maintain their vehicles? Okay! Annual inspections are just another tax on us motorists here in PA. Changing brake pads it easy of you have a big enough C-clamp. And a hex bit (for some cars).

    You must live in a warm climate.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-25-2021), Lightbringer (01-25-2021)

  10. #231 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,478
    Thanks
    4,410
    Thanked 1,036 Times in 766 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 155 Times in 147 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    That is a lie.

    And it is politicians that put bribes and donations over public safety.
    You're FOS, YOU know better than the rail industry?

    A broken isn't the leading causes of accidents, it's ONE of the leading causes.

    "And it is politicians that put bribes and donations over public safety".

    I can believe that.

    JULY 17, 2015

    Washington, D.C. – At a time of record auto recalls and high-profile train wrecks, Republicans are working on legislation to roll back safety regulation of the auto and railroad industries.

    A bill approved this week on a party-line vote by a Senate committee brims with industry-sought provisions that would block, delay or roll back safety rules. The measure is to be part of a must-pass transportation bill that GOP leaders hope to put to a vote in the Senate as early as next week.

    They are under pressure to act quickly because authority for transportation programs expires on July 31. Without a cash infusion, the government will have to delay highway and transit aid to states.

    FEBRUARY 26, 2018

    The rules that have been impacted by President Trump's quest to roll back regulations would have addressed dangerous safety problems from speeding tractor-trailers to sleepy railroad engineers. There have been no significant new safety rules approved during his term.

    The sidelined rules also would have required states to conduct annual inspections of commercial bus operators, railroads to operate trains with at least two crew members and automakers to equip future cars and light trucks with vehicle-to-vehicle communications to prevent collisions.

  11. #232 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I read the paper. Bet you didn't. Sovacool makes a fatal error in his paper. He considers the entirety of both nuclear and oil use to include all ancillary and production cycle effects while only considering the in use risk for wind turbines. Wind power, like any other technology involves considerable mining and use of things like heavy metals, rare earths, etc.

    So, the paper is badly flawed to show what the author wants it to show!
    The author's conclusions were vetted and peer reviewed by independent experts in their scientific field, and accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal.

    You posted your opinion on an obscure message board

    You should write a paper, submit it for review by independent experts, and get it published.

    Only then will your opinion be given equal weight with peer reviewed scientific papers.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Phantasmal (01-25-2021)

  13. #233 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    you forgot the 71k construction jobs -and the pipeline is all US Steel - more jobs
    Also millions in tax revenues lost by the states.

    Biden is a disaster out to kill the energy sector.

    Our inability to build a FUCKING PIPELINE
    thru 3 administrations speaks volumes of government confusion.
    Temporary, short term construction jobs.

    The U.S. State Department says only 35 permanent jobs will be needed to operate the finished pipeline.

    When Hyundai builds plants here, they make it a point to report how many thousands of good paying permanent they will create. Why are retreating to use a radically different measure of job creation?

  14. #234 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,062
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    The author's conclusions were vetted and peer reviewed by independent experts in their scientific field, and accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal.

    You posted your opinion on an obscure message board

    You should write a paper, submit it for review by independent experts, and get it published.

    Only then will your opinion be given equal weight with peer reviewed scientific papers.
    Yea, peer reviewed... There's a joke, and that extends to virtually all peer review. It's an almost meaningless process today.

    In 2005, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) created a software program called SCIgen that randomly combined strings of words to generate fake computer science papers. The objective of the exercise was to prove that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed and the conferences and journals would accept meaningless papers. After being notified by other researchers who were deliberately tracking SCIgen papers, journals were still quietly pulling articles as late as 2014.

    The media attention that this simple exercise “to maximize amusement” generated has brought the peer review process under considerable scrutiny. Are journals really making a concerted effort to review submissions? Or is it just a perfunctory exercise implemented to add a perception of academic quality for the journal?
    https://www.enago.com/academy/is-pee...rocess-a-scam/

    failure of peer review
    Today Science is up on a pedestal. A new god has appeared; his high priests conduct the rituals, with nuclear reactors, moon-probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry.
    Bruce Cathie


    The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine)
    The defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of critical editorials and studies in the literature over recent years. The notion of peer review occupies special territory in the world of science. However, investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, treatments, cures, and so on rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship. This can mean censorship of everything from contrarian viewpoints to innovations that render favored dogmas, products, or services obsolete (economic threats) depending on circumstances. The problem is endemic, as many scientists have learned the hard way.
    https://globalfreedommovement.org/th...f-peer-review/

    https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...1002/lob.10217
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffre...h=1cdbc5cf463e

    While I can only speak to my own experience with this in military history, peer reviewed books are often some of the least useful, most poorly researched on the market. Like this tripe:



    Mosier is an English professor and his book is just terrible. When I had a personal discussion with him on that, he pulled the logical fallacy, as you did, of Appeal to authority. He said he was a PhD, I wasn't and that the book had been peer reviewed. No attempt to defend the positions he took in the book, no refutation of my criticisms, just appeal to authority.
    Doesn't change his book is crap.

    Same thing here.

  15. #235 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Yea, peer reviewed... There's a joke, and that extends to virtually all peer review. It's an almost meaningless process today.


    https://www.enago.com/academy/is-pee...rocess-a-scam/






    https://globalfreedommovement.org/th...f-peer-review/

    https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...1002/lob.10217
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffre...h=1cdbc5cf463e

    While I can only speak to my own experience with this in military history, peer reviewed books are often some of the least useful, most poorly researched on the market. Like this tripe:



    Mosier is an English professor and his book is just terrible. When I had a personal discussion with him on that, he pulled the logical fallacy, as you did, of Appeal to authority. He said he was a PhD, I wasn't and that the book had been peer reviewed. No attempt to defend the positions he took in the book, no refutation of my criticisms, just appeal to authority.
    Doesn't change his book is crap.

    Same thing here.
    You posted an opinion on an obscure message board on a scientific topic you spent ten minutes thinking about.

    The authors are trained experts who spent years training to work in this scientific discipline, had their research vetted by independent experts, and got published in a reputable technical journal.


    There is no comparison in credibility whatsoever.

  16. #236 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,062
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    You posted an opinion on an obscure message board on a scientific topic you spent ten minutes thinking about.

    The authors are trained experts who spent years training to work in this scientific discipline, had their research vetted by independent experts, and got published in a reputable technical journal.


    There is no comparison in credibility whatsoever.
    I know statistics quite well. When you don't make equal comparisons, you skew the statistics. The paper did that in favor of wind generation. That's pretty common with green technologies that can't compete on an level playing field.

    That aside, you keep making the same argument that Mosier did: Appeal to authority. They're scientists, you're not. You are wrong. That's a pure logical fallacy. It doesn't matter who they are or what their credentials are. If they are right, they're right. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They are wrong because they used an invalid statistical method to compare generation methods.

  17. #237 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post


    That's proof of the opposite. Electric cars are more dependent on complex electronics and then there's the battery. They are much harder to maintain in the long run than an internal combustion engine vehicle.
    No, it's not proof of the opposite. All you did was provide a video proving that electric cars are not indestructible and if it is damaged, insurance covers it. You do realize that flood damage doesn't occur in a hard rainstorm or driving through a puddle, right? ICE vehicles are also damaged by floods and totaled by an insurance company when that happens. Based on the video I would be more likely to buy a flood damaged electric car that has been repaired than a ICE one.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  18. #238 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,062
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    No, it's not proof of the opposite. All you did was provide a video proving that electric cars are not indestructible and if it is damaged, insurance covers it. You do realize that flood damage doesn't occur in a hard rainstorm or driving through a puddle, right? ICE vehicles are also damaged by floods and totaled by an insurance company when that happens. Based on the video I would be more likely to buy a flood damaged electric car that has been repaired than a ICE one.
    Did you listen to the guy? The cars in his shop are "bricked." That is, their owners failed to maintain a proper charge on them and they became undrivable. He mentions various modules necessary to operate the vehicle and how owner private data is stored on some of those.

    https://www.brickedtesla.com/
    https://www.carscoops.com/2019/10/pr...storage-chips/
    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...emory-problem/

    No internal combustion engine vehicle made today becomes undrivable--permanently--and needing massively costly repairs, often tens of thousands of dollars worth, to restore it because the battery died or it ran out of gas.

  19. #239 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    All science is provisional until years or decades of continuing analysis and experimentation results in a widespread consensus. The article provides a peer reviewed analysis which had passed muster in a reputable scientific publication.

    Here is a 2013 study that provides the same conclusion: compared to fossil fuels and nuclear, wind farms are vastly more safe for avian wildlife and bats. By a country mile.

    This study also does not take into account the ratio of wind turbines to nuclear or fossil fuel generation. It is the same simple math I showed above. If wind turbines were to provide the same
    amount of energy as Nuclear or FF generation they would be far deadlier than either. There is no getting around the math. Each and everyone of these studies deliberately leave that part out.
    Shiny baubles for the uniformed. Works every time.

  20. #240 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    I heard the Pipefitters' Union is unhappy with the usurper they endorsed all of a sudden.

    What did they think would happen to their jobs?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-21-2018, 09:18 AM
  2. Feds deny permit for Dakota Access pipeline!
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-05-2016, 11:30 AM
  3. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-17-2015, 03:11 PM
  4. Mass. police: Bomb suspects didn't have gun permit
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-22-2013, 06:28 PM
  5. No Concealed Carry Gun Permit Required in Arizona Now
    By SJJRSJJS in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 05:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •