Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Paul O Subscribe

On Renewable Tax Extenders Package Set To Emerge From Finance Committee

Seriously, I'd really like to know if your home is powered by solar energy, and if it is not, Why not?

July 31, 2015    View Comment    

On The Post-Partisan Fallacy: Is the Republican Party Incapable of Addressing Climate Change?

Bruce It's the irony, and  it's like this: The Church has been riddicled too many time in the past (denigrating its moral authority), by the non-republicans ( and I am now using terminology similar to the poster's own terminology) So, for me to now take a non-republican endorsement of the pope as anything other than being opportunistic when he/they suddenly start quoting the self-same object of their  former riddicule, is rather difficult.

There are certainly many other authorities the poster may have sited and still gotten the point accross. Afterall, it's not as if the pope is a climatologist or anything, why should anyone, including republicans, listen to any non-spiritual commentary the pope espouses?

Conversely, if the poster believes that the pope is indeed such a reliable leader as to be worth quoting and be listenened to by one and all for guidance, why then limit the pope's authority to only AGW. Why not extend his authority to other matters like abortions as well? 

Would the poster  ever quote the pope on moral dogma to democrats? Somehow I doubt that he would. Shall we then infer that the pope only makes sense on matters to which the poster and democrats wish him to make sense, or only when he seems to buck republicans?

From the direct reference to "republicans" in the comment, one would suspect that the author is a democrat, and as with other democrats he may have  tended to be historically dismissive of much of The Church's dogma.

In any case I believe that the pope is less likely to sway republicans (or anyone else for that matter), than would a scientist who does not act or sound like he/she has an ulterior leftist agenda in tow, such as knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power. 

I say this because that is how I personally came to terms with the reality of AGW. I feel certain that I can persuade most unconvinced conservative lawmakers if I got a chance to talk to them in a non-threatening and non ideological manner. AGW endangers us all after all.

July 6, 2015    View Comment    

On The Post-Partisan Fallacy: Is the Republican Party Incapable of Addressing Climate Change?

1) Some Climate warnings are imagined for sure:  http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/27/prof-claims-global-warming-caused-nepals-earthquakes/ and I don't actually believe the pope is relevant one way or another. (Just my take).

2) I should have put real or imagined in quotes since it was meant as rhetorical, and I personally accept the reality of AGW,

July 3, 2015    View Comment    

On The Post-Partisan Fallacy: Is the Republican Party Incapable of Addressing Climate Change?

We polute, they pay.  Well, not being Catholic myself, I guess I don't really care how catholics view their doctrinal future, however two things come to mind. Setting aside the popularity in the 3rd world of the sentiment that developed nations should  "pay up". 

1) Poorer people tend to be more conservative in their beliefs, and a Pope straying two far left might find himself ignored doctrinally. His popularity only goes so far in terms of beliefs and practices. They probably have far more pressing matters on their dially minds than GW.

2) If the developed nations do end up finding themeslves too burdened financially, their aid contributions to 3rd world countries will suffer. There is a risk then that without western aid, these self-same countries will continue denuding their own forests, burn coal and use oil for energy. They simply wont be able to afford Windmills and solar cells in a way that would significantly develop their economies.

The world has become very intricatly mutually entangled, such that pain in the developed world does/will not neccessarily benefit the 3rd world. Having said this, make no mistake that I am in favor of developed nations doing more to discover and make cheaper, none CO2 emmiting power sources.

I still find it amusing that "non republicans" with a long record of disdain for catholic beliefs now rush to praise a Pope who sings their tune. Wonder how they will recieve the next pope if he is not as left leaning as this one.

 

June 25, 2015    View Comment    

On The Post-Partisan Fallacy: Is the Republican Party Incapable of Addressing Climate Change?

He sure is, but how succesful will he be if he takes a sharp left turn away from the faithful?

 

June 23, 2015    View Comment    

On The Post-Partisan Fallacy: Is the Republican Party Incapable of Addressing Climate Change?

It is amusing how Non Republicans who have always derided Previous Popes and Catholic doctrine in their opposition to abortion, should now suddenlyapprove of the current pontif. Talk about have your cake and eat it.


If I were to advice republicans, I would have them change their focus from "Climate Change" to abundant sustainable Carbon free energy. Republicans should side-step the question of GW entirely, and focus on carbon free Energy Indepence. They should come out boldly in favor of and commit themselves to developing Gen. Four Nuclear Power. If they were to do this it would difuse the Left's attack agenda while solving Climate problems real or imagined. If the Left were to show their true colors by opposing Gen Four Nukes, it would reveal them for their hypocrisy.

June 22, 2015    View Comment    

On Dismal Economics and Increased CO2 of Montpelier District Heating Plant

Bob, Is this not what nature does? Is this not what the Amazon and other rain forests do? Perhaps we should allow the wild places in Minnesota to naturally grow what timber and undergrowth they will, while we focus on non CO2 producing sources.

May 16, 2015    View Comment    

On Dismal Economics and Increased CO2 of Montpelier District Heating Plant

Willem, I might be misconstruing your comment, but to my thinking What you say is only true when the only option to coal is is Biomas and If use of Biomas is not being made as a substitute for Carbon Free Dispatchible sources.

BTW, has anyone evaluated the long term benefits of Natural Gas vs Biomas if the Biomas were ploughed in the ground and replaced with a new crop to continue removing CO2 from the atmosphere?

I realise there are no easy answers.

May 15, 2015    View Comment    

On Dismal Economics and Increased CO2 of Montpelier District Heating Plant

Puting aside "nuclear trolls" or Solar Trolls, or Wind Trolls, or whatever-is-your-favorite energy source trolls  for the moment.

It really beggars the imagination to see how anyone who claims to care about atmospheric CO2 can defend re-releasing already trapped and sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere for any reason whatsoever.

I guess if you happen to love something you'll somehow always find a way to justify it.

To my mind, we should be finding ways to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and leave it trapped,  by burying it in the ground. 

May 13, 2015    View Comment    

On Energy 24/7: No Fuel Costs - The Sexy Seduction of Renewables [PODCAST]

Obviously fou missed the phrase "Fast Neutron" in Steve's post.

May 9, 2015    View Comment    

On Uber vs. Google: Electric Vehicles Are About To Get Really Interesting

I would be okay with self-driving cars if they had steering  wheels, brakes and accellerator pedals, and if they didn't overide me when I overide them.

I would hate for a car to drag me at 20 mph when my wife is in the back seat hoping to get to the ER for emergency surgery on a burst appendix.

As I recall Google's vision of self-driving cars don't include stearing wheels.

May 2, 2015    View Comment