2 of 2
2
Robert Price, co-host of POI and global warming skeptic
Posted: 10 October 2010 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15
Henk van der Gaast - 09 October 2010 11:21 PM

what sort of skeptics are you talking about?

Folks who make grand charges, but then are incapable are arguing the merits of their pronouncements.

Or worse, folks who blindly repeat notions (such as the 70’s global cooling “consensus” which is entirely urban legend nonsense > as has been detailed in easily half a dozen quantitative examinations of the literature of the time!)

Or Folks who refuse to allow new, valid, information [to] inform an adjustment in their perspective.

[ Edited: 11 October 2010 07:47 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2010 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 October 2010 04:56 PM

Or Folks who refuse to allow new, valid, information inform an adjustment in their perspective.

Reshaping your opinion based on new information is a very logical thing to do. Unfortunately it is seen as a negative in politics and can get you the pejorative label of ‘flip-flopper’. It seems, in politics, it is better to stick with discredited information. For some reason voters are more comforted by consistency than accuracy. confused

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2010 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2010-10-06

Too true.

100 years of data and a number of decades of extremely promising research might be misguided but its so extremely unlikely that folk who are paid to measure, review and model data could interpret it so poorly so as to say..there is a debate in anthropogenic global warming.

But even if global warming was a scam, to who’s benefit is it?

So I muse:


1) If technology associated with carbon emissions was made more efficient by 20% (cars between 1950 and 2010 is a good example) then the continual dissemination of these technologies will not stabilise CO2 concentrations (atmospheric) not even reduce CO2 concentrations, the demand for technology will drive the establishment of more and more fossil fuel burners after a lag period. This lag period will be far shorter than global CO2 (nat) sequestration.

So beware all you clean coal, low wattage device and electrical efficiency proselytisers all you are saving is your power bill in the short term.

2) Technological carbon sequestration is an idea that’s in its infancy whereas other technologies are ready to roll.

3) Technologies such as wind, solar and waste recycling for biofuels sort of help to keep costs down (not that its an overwhelming thing even for confined systems). These must be considered as part of the plan and entrenched in the current solution to our woes.  They are not enough!

Furthermore, growing biofuel acreage is madness. Acreage is for food.  The waste products that can be introduced back into the environment should be recycled. Sewage is a great start, growing biota rapidly that makes lipid in sewage is a better start. Recycling the water is an even better start and so on (who is going to magic water for you as your world population hits 10 gig?).  Its about time we recycled our waste to save power and resources.

The contribution of biotechnology will also help to minimise power and resources. Its done so for the past 2 centuries and we have a chance of utilising our waste and technology for a truly “organic” crop rather than the patently false mission statement “organic” we have today.

4) Nuclear technology should be encouraged and disseminated as coal plants go off the grid and more power is required. 50 years of research and industrial nuclear technologies show us that they just don’t suffer from nuclear explosions. Two incidents show us that simple containment is a great method for controlling total meltdown.

Nuclear waste should be reused (and its most likely being trialled in modular reactors for median communities as I type). U-Pu and Th reactors conceivably will give us power for a hell of a long time.  Who knows, maybe we will only get one generation in before LIFTR technologies are up and running. Nuclear waste is gold if its utilised.

5) my favourite lie is “Coal is better than nuclear for the environment”. Every day your local coal burner spews forth a hell of a lot of radioactive and toxic metals.  Its either flies into the atmosphere (depending where you live) or its dumped, squirreled in to materials or stored.  It is in no way encapsulated for intractable waste. It is in no way stored in the manner the nuclear industry stores its waste.

For our Australian viewers, you would have seen power price comparisons for nuclear, coal, solar from lectures on the web over the past few years. Nuclear power was a little bit more to use than coal fired origin power.  This year you would have noticed the price of power leap for various provisioning reasons. Its a fact that those who are 50 -80 years old prevented clean nuclear options by playing ostrich. If this generation (and I am in that lot) had have undertaken real power research (as mooted by our conservative government in 1968) we may have been the country supplying the best technologies world wide. 

I bemoan that we are importers of ideas in Australia.  I also bemoan the sense that Global warming is a debatable issue in Australia.  If you listen to commercial talk back radio, climate change is ludicrous by all accounts.


The bible Geek may have his views but its never something I notice. He isn’t a scientist and he is great at the mythologies.  Frankly, I haven’t even noticed him saying it and I am an ardent fan of his podcast.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2010 09:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

Interesting musing, welcome aboard and hope to hear more from you.

If only we could get the masters of the universe weaned from their military industrial war making machine obsession some of what you mention could probably be developed. But, alas, bombs and perpetuating destruction seems a higher priority for the powers that be.

Henk van der Gaast - 10 October 2010 06:05 PM

The bible Geek may have his views but its never something I notice. He isn’t a scientist and he is great at the mythologies.  Frankly, I haven’t even noticed him saying it and I am an ardent fan of his podcast.

Well I must admit, if not for Tal Neander I wouldn’t known about Price’s comments either - and excuse me for being so extremely offended by their base ignorance for one who presents such a learned facade. 

As for his bible talk show, I’ve listened a few times - but to be honest, all that bible talk just degenerates into vacuous, pointless blah blah reruns in this jaded old mind of mine, and I’ve usually wound up switching it off before it’s finished.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2010 09:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15
asanta - 10 October 2010 05:37 PM

Reshaping your opinion based on new information is a very logical thing to do. Unfortunately it is seen as a negative in politics and can get you the pejorative label of ‘flip-flopper’. It seems, in politics, it is better to stick with discredited information. For some reason voters are more comforted by consistency than accuracy. confused

Could that be why [we] keep on this slippery sliddy slope we are on?

[ Edited: 11 October 2010 07:41 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2010 10:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2010-10-06
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 October 2010 09:29 PM

Interesting musing, welcome aboard and hope to hear more from you.

If only we could get the masters of the universe weaned from their military industrial war making machine obsession some of what you mention could probably be developed. But, alas, bombs and perpetuating destruction seems a higher priority for the powers that be.

Henk van der Gaast - 10 October 2010 06:05 PM

The bible Geek may have his views but its never something I notice. He isn’t a scientist and he is great at the mythologies.  Frankly, I haven’t even noticed him saying it and I am an ardent fan of his podcast.

Well I must admit, if not for Tal Neander I wouldn’t known about Price’s comments either - and excuse me for being so extremely offended by their base ignorance for one who presents such a learned facade. 

As for his bible talk show, I’ve listened a few times - but to be honest, all that bible talk just degenerates into vacuous, pointless blah blah reruns in this jaded old mind of mine, and I’ve usually wound up switching it off before it’s finished.


for some reason most of yer post was quoted.  Yes, military madness has its disadvantages but we can let the non nuclear powered nations suffer extreme economic hardship if we store then use or go straight to Th/U reactors (no useful military nuclides).  Given that LIFTR is now on a promise, there is no reason to place modular reactors to communities and inherently indecent 10GW GenIV Th for major cities. 

Let fusion come at its own pace.  There could be a good use for all them tokamacs and experimental units one day… waste burning.

I would suggest keeping an eye on India.. If not for the way of not going about Th reactors.  Their system will have one advantage, breeding U233 from Pu fluxes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2010 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-10-19

His podcasts are lightly sprinkled with other right-wing talking points as well (Obama is a socialist, etc).

Hm yes I just encountered something like that.

...There are many of these purposes for myths, some social, some individual. The individual ones naturally take on greater importance within a pluralistic society. Many of us feel like we can get behind the myths of the civil religion (as Russell Ritchey and others call it) of America that we’re kind of like the ancient Hebrews and the Exodus and so on.

I heard a talk about that by Shadia Drury at the thirtieth anniversary CFI bash in Los Angeles a couple weeks ago, and ooh boy was she a Canadian. She does not hold this guiding myth of American exceptionalism and takes seemingly a rather dim view of it. And I suddenly realized why all of these left-wing humanists hate America or Americanism and they seem to think it is simply an application of a Bible story that they don’t believe in and it results in arrogance. Well anything can result in arrogance, even humanism in case you hadn’t noticed. But I happen to believe in American exceptionalism based on the evidence. The more titanic you become the more dangerous a misstep can be, and that certainly happened too, but nonetheless believing in it I would agree with her that it is a guiding myth, I think a good one. You may think a bad one, doesn’t matter for our purpose here…

October 18th podcast @ time 20:36.
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/rss20430.xml

[ Edited: 19 October 2010 03:47 PM by Vertical ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-12-12

11/22/2010 Bible Geek podcast 4:44

I find liberalism to be a rationalization of survivor guilt almost pure and simple, and it seems to me that its adherents hold to it with an absolute faith commitment that no facts are able to dislodge.

What the hell? This from a global warming denialist.

Would someone please confront Price on global warming. Point out that facts are unable to dislodge his beliefs. It would be inappropriate for a PoI host to be a creationist; how is an AGW denier any different? CFI, what are you thinking?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2010-10-06

I think he just doesn’t understand the issue at stake.  He isnt big on science as has mentioned some astronomy that is incorrect (if precession had anything to do with it, he would be more incorrect).


There is a problem with theological study.  As far as literature goes, it sounds voluminous and impressive but its not reflective of current society and is slowly dripping down the gurgler getting less and less productive by the second. It is just one strand of useful thought (forbid that it ever dissapeared) but its never going to be a jot compared to the multiple strands within scientific endeavour.

Robert will have to come to grips with that one day.


I do find the comment that his podcasts and interviews are boring.  What do you want? Oprah Winfrey or dancing people?  I’ll email Price to see if he can do one on ice for you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15
Henk van der Gaast - 12 December 2010 06:01 PM

I think he just doesn’t understand the issue at stake.  He isnt big on science as has mentioned some astronomy that is incorrect (if precession had anything to do with it, he would be more incorrect).

Then Price should stick to the Bible where he can’t do harm.
Zoofoomoo would like to hear more from you. . .

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 09:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2010-10-06

If you listened to the context of both you’d probably see how it gets brought up.  If you haven’t listened, then its no point complaining.
I can criticise these points on my experience, he cant.

Try listening to the brain bonging of others on vaccination, HFCS, MSG and aspartame issues.  I hardly think its even worth a few notes here. But Price?  Oh Boy, he must be different to want to disagree with you..

I think interviewing actors and directors atc etc on ridicule issues such a s religion and atheism should be minimised somewhat. I only hope the Hollywood dalai lama sycophants don’t get their own episodes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2010 10:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  779
Joined  2009-07-17
asanta - 10 October 2010 05:37 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 October 2010 04:56 PM

Or Folks who refuse to allow new, valid, information inform an adjustment in their perspective.

Reshaping your opinion based on new information is a very logical thing to do. Unfortunately it is seen as a negative in politics and can get you the pejorative label of ‘flip-flopper’. It seems, in politics, it is better to stick with discredited information. For some reason voters are more comforted by consistency than accuracy. confused

Dang… No “Like” button.

Take care,

Derek

 Signature 

“It is noble to be good; it is still nobler to teach others to be good—and less trouble.”—Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2010 12:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15
Henk van der Gaast - 12 December 2010 09:57 PM

If you listened to the context of both you’d probably see how it gets brought up.  If you haven’t listened, then its no point complaining.
I can criticise these points on my experience, he cant.

Well, I did make a point of listening to the episodes Tal Neander opened this thread with, previous to that I’d listen to parts of his program ~ although since listening through the 1/16/2010 and much of the 1/5/2010 program, I’ll admit, these days as soon as that voice comes on I grown and switch off.  So I won’t comment on any of his other interviews, unless of course I’m inspired for god only knows why to listen in again.

sorry the bitchy side of me coming through - but not sure I catch your drift about the context justifying the comments ?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2011 01:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2011-01-02

December 28th, time 59:50

We have been lied to by fact-manipulating liberal activists in the case of AIDS, the homeless, and the nuclear freeze. Not only were they full of baloney but they later admitted they knew they were but thought they had to say what they had to say to get things done, the way they wanted ‘em.

What is he talking about? AIDS denialism? Goddamn WTF. What about homeless? Nuclear freeze? It appears as though he’s hooked on some conspiracy websites. Is he a 9-11 truther too? A birther?

Whatever this is, it seems rather antithetical to the goals of CFI. His Bible Geek podcast isn’t related to CFI, but still ... WTF?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2011 02:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Waaaah! I want D.J. Groethe baaaack!!!! downer

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2