Lifestyle > Train of Thought
100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 19, 2009, 10:03:07 AM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg on December 19, 2009, 09:39:50 AM ---You are arguing the wrong argument. First off, CO2 does help cause global warming, second CO, which cars give out, is more harmful than CO2. Also, OIL IS LIMITED... let me say that again, oil is limited. If anything, we should change fuels because we are going to run out of oil someday, and we need a plan B, C and D. You are a market person, well is it any fault of the market that shows green energy and low admissions cars are selling. LED Christmas lights instead of regular, energy bulbs over regular bulbs. I say this, you want some reading on our depleting oil supply, then here you go. http://quasar.unibas.ch/~fisker/401/oil/oil.html Filled with tons of links and references please read that.
--- End quote ---
Lol do you even know what you are talking about? C0 is carbon monoxide which results in incomplete burning of fossil fuels, as opposed to C02 which produces more oxygen than it does carbon hence it gives life as opposed to starving the environment. Carbon monoxide is a problem in an enclosed space of course, because your body is then robbed of oxygen but other than that, it can freely escape. No offence but you are the person who spoke about the poison we see being emitted into the air from factories (carbon monoxide) except we don't see it, we don't taste it, we don't smell it. As for oil there are hundreds and hundreds of years of it and that's from my existing supplies, google oil found, there are thousands of links all over the world to various reserves. I agree if you can get away from the dependency without severely hurting the existing economy then great.
--- End quote ---
Oh dear god, you are reaching. You know, like I know what CO is all about, and you know like I know that we may have so many years of oil, but it will run out soon, and we will need to change, and 100 years is actually not that far off in the big picture. The reason we have more oil supply that previously thought is because of how much nations are cutting their oil supply. We are in a place right now that allows us to use less, therefore prolonging our existing oil supply. If nations like China and India though, with 2 billion people between them, 1/3rd the worlds population, use oil at the same rate we use oil, we will be out of oil in very short time. If they developed like the rest of the world did, there would be no more oil. We need to move away from oil if we want to ensure that economies do develop and that nations reach their full potential.
virtuoso:
Actually if you read into last year's output, supply actually increased while demand fell which brought into light just how the speculators were in driving prices further and further up. I think there are many hundreds of years of oil left, but I don't disagree, if we can move away from our dependance on oil while not having our living standards driven further down then show me where this is going to come from. The immediate answer might be windfarms etc but it's a fact they don't produce enough energy, so the alternative then is nuclear power but environmentalists say no fuck that, we aren't having that, so then I am asking you, what energy sources?
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 19, 2009, 10:45:07 AM ---
Actually if you read into last year's output, supply actually increased while demand fell which brought into light just how the speculators were in driving prices further and further up. I think there are many hundreds of years of oil left, but I don't disagree, if we can move away from our dependance on oil while not having our living standards driven further down then show me where this is going to come from. The immediate answer might be windfarms etc but it's a fact they don't produce enough energy, so the alternative then is nuclear power but environmentalists say no fuck that, we aren't having that, so then I am asking you, what energy sources?
--- End quote ---
For now, I'm not sure, but it's something our investors need to put money on. Because who ever figures it out will be the Rockefeller of the future.
virtuoso:
Exactly, you have just illustrated the nihilistic loony tendencies of at least some of these environmentalists, they want us to abandon the core energy's we use now without having any alternatives to fall back on.
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 19, 2009, 10:59:37 AM ---
Exactly, you have just illustrated the nihilistic loony tendencies of at least some of these environmentalists, they want us to abandon the core energy's we use now without having any alternatives to fall back on.
--- End quote ---
*Slap hand on head moment*
No one wants to just abandon what we have now, well at least those with sanity. Check it, those that want to abandon what we have are the equivalent of those "Tea Baggers" that Keith Olbermann talks about who are racist and think Obama was born in Kenya, even though his mom was a straight white American. Most environmentalist are claiming change. You know in California, home to the most extreme environmentalist, when it was proposed to build new power plants that aren't yet using green energy, to replace the older power plants, they said yes because newer power plants are cleaner and it would be an improvement to what is going on now. You take extreme environmentalist, the ones that also don't eat meat and are afraid of animal fur, and you make them out to be all liberals. How is that possible. I know conservatives who are trying to be green now. It's not a matter shifting economics, it's a matter of doing what's right.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version