So meta
Not an original thought in that person, what a waste of billions.
Oh my Cthulhu, those reddit comments
Once upon a time, it was impossible to trademark or servicemark a name like that, it being a commonplace word, but that restriction got corrupted many years ago.
I wish I could adequately explain the irrelevantness of this. chef’s kiss
We could create the word μετα-μαλακίες which would have succintly described all that very accurately 
Sooner or later this was bound to happen. And apparently it isn’t new news either. Don’t ever let anyone tell you that the Biden Administration is actually doing anything reasonable about the climate crisis…
But I guess on a certain level we have to ask ourselves if there really is anything that can be reasonably and reliably done. If nuclear fusion energy could be efficiently obtained, then there we go, but otherwise we are just running down a foxhole that is either (a). still a developed world reliant on fossil fuels, which may still gives us a bit of energy for some time to come yet, or (b.) go back to pre-industrial era times. I guess it seems like an easy decision to me.
But when you want to pretend there is a solution like these clowns, to make yourself look good, it seems easy enough to cut back on oil extraction, realize that we really do need gas to power cars right now, and then say that the US is doing their part in making the world a cleaner place while Saudi Arabia is simply giving us the oil we need. Meanwhile China continues to laugh at us all day as they continue to burn about ten times as much coal and continue aggressively expanding that sector.
Also, a note on the media bias of RedState, if it is too conservative for you, just do a google search and you will find even the mainstream media covering this. They frequently gloss over these kinds of topics, but the last ten months have been such a mess for the country that even they cannot gloss over everything now.
I guess this is aimed at me: it’s not too conservative for me, it’s too biased for me. News should strive to be as unbiased as possible if it has the goal to inform people of the current state of the world. Instead, bias points towards a different goal: convincing people to act a certain way. I don’t want the news to tell me what to do or how to think, I want the media to tell me what’s happening and make up my own mind.
E.g., about the title, the qualifier “idiotic” is not informative, it is only there to influence your opinion. “(…) that is sure to fail” isn’t news, you can’t report on something that will fail before it has actually failed.
I agree, almost no government seems to do anything remotely close enough to solve the climate crisis. The usual excuse is that it’s too expensive or that it will require too many people to change their daily lives. Meanwhile, most scientific models seem to suggest that not acting now will be both more expensive in the long term and require more drastic changes in daily live (due to habitat destruction, severe weather, shortage of food, etc)
Nevertheless, if the choice is between Biden and Trump, then the first may not do enough to solve the crisis, but the second denies there is a crisis at all. This is just a what-about-ism.
This is a false dichotomy that’s often presented. It’s like there’s no middle ground between doing nothing at all and getting rid of all industry. When in the 60’s people decided it was time to go to the moon, we managed to do that within a couple of years with the processing power of an average current-day microwave. When in the 40’s there was a war to win, we discovered nuclear power and developed the first computers.
We can definitely solve this crisis and come out better at the other end. It just needs a lot more priority. (and quick, the problem is only getting harder to solve)
Or did we?..
but otherwise we are just running down a foxhole that is either (a). still a developed world reliant on fossil fuels, which may still gives us a bit of energy for some time to come yet, or (b.) go back to pre-industrial era times.
As usual, I have some more information for you to dwelve into … unlike Texas where they “used” the bad weather to discredit the whole thing, in Australia they did the REASONABLE thing (since that medium you quoted is all about “reason” huehuehue) and actually sat down and found the error and FIXED IT
So, I really do not know why you are limiting your choices of power sources willingly, just like you seem to be limiting your choices of information sources. 
like these clowns
hmm… you are getting quite into it, eh?
Be aware that verbal slips and written slips are different things.
I can curse if I stub my toe on a table and that is “reflex” that does NOT reflect on my character, but if I am doing so in writing that is a consious choice that does.
while Saudi Arabia is simply giving us the oil we need.
I do not see what is so unreasonable to exploring the alternative of importing more of it.
It is not as if you were ever self-sufficient for oil since you kept the local reserves untapped in case of emergencies … incidentally that is a very BASIC strategy, to ALWAYS try to deplete the resources that are the FURTHEST away…
So, I do not know what that fellow in the article is ranting about, but as an ex-military officer I can tell you that this is a valid idea.
Also, a note on the media bias of RedState, if it is too conservative for you
It is not “too conservative” for me. It is just blatantly “I am pushing my agenda and how do you like my pandering to you? Please give me money to continue to cater to your prejudices”
The “editor’s note” at the end when they ask for money is pretty clear about that.
Here is also a marvelous line from it:
he wanted to make pink-haired lefties who block highways feel like they are saving the planet
Oof and I thought that it was about native americans sueing against it:
What now? Aren’t NATIVE AMERICANS, american enough for the article author? ohohohoh “dat subtle racism” eh?
EDIT: I just noticed that the author is just a nickname “Bonchie” … didn’t even had the guts to put his name under his own opinion article? Niiiiiice 
That’s where I get my news 
(NSFW)
Oh, and something else. I am not editing the above because it is important.
Those in the South have seen their gas prices double to over $3.00 a gallon over the last several months, but they have it easy compared to places like California, where one station was recently charging over $7.00 a gallon. That’s enough to make Europe blush.
I just paid 1,76 euros per litre to get some gas earlier.
That is almost 7 euros to the US gallon
Which is 8.12 dollars to the gallon in Greece
So the gas prize in “the South” is less than half than what I am paying Greece and they think it is “too much”? I find that VERY interesting, just like I found interesting how last time you had a government shutdown a portion of the de facto middle class of the country (the civil servants) proved to be living paycheck-to-paycheck, couldn’t afford rent and ended up queueing for foodstamps.
Just two worrying facts. You think them over yourself it is your country after all and I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to make of those facts.
Well, I guess you frequently are the one getting nitpicky about bias, and that is often a good thing. However, the reason I brought that up is because I had a slight hunch that if someone, and not necessarily you, were to see that and see it is from RedState, they would assume that it is biased and therefore false in most if not every way. I wanted to explain that other outlets, many of which I can’t help but believe further their own bias without grounded facts either, actually covered this topic.
Well, the word idiotic certainly does not provide meaning in itself, and frequently stirs the emotions, but the issue is that people have to stop seeing something, assume it is biased, and thus avoid it for feelings of inaccuracy. Trust me when I say that bias is only going to increase in media reports in this day and age. Thus, it is counterproductive to simply avoid all bias, and better to accept the bias, understand it there and be careful with it, but pull the real facts out from further research and, as you mentioned, your own reasoning.
And trust me, having Saudi Arabia or another country in that area actually drill for oil is way more dangerous to the environment then simply letting us in the US do it. It will be worse in the long run. It is completely a I-just-don’t-want-to-look-bad thing for politicians. Perhaps the wording was a little vague, but that is mainly what I think he meant by failure. He could also be referring to the US becoming energy-dependent on the Middle East, another bad thing, but that could be more open for debate. We could argue that the terrorism in the Middle East would all of a sudden stop and that the Taliban would start being more regulatory with oil extraction, but that is so unlikely, you may as well say that it will be a failure. He is advancing his own opinion, if you disagree with it than fine, just get the content, at least try to see where is coming from, and if you complete disagree than that is that.
This is where I now have to be that one guy that disagrees with everyone. I don’t actually disagree at all with man-made climate change, in fact I agree that it could be true. The biggest problem I have is understanding why it is a crisis. I cannot help but wonder if people will adapt and change like we have done throughout history. The state I live in is more or less a slight desert, but there was a time when it was probably like the Sahara and another time a rainforest. I guess the argument now is that the climate will change too quickly for us to adapt, but then I often wonder why everything seems to have been just fine these last hundred years. I mean, if you want to look at things from a scientific perspective, with the standard of wealth factored in, these last hundred years have been the best in history. Oh, and that is definitely at least partially thanks to fossil fuels.
Also when my state was a rainforest and frozen over at another time, people did not cause that, something else did… It is almost like there is a lot that goes on with our climate we don’t understand well or know much about. Just because it is science does not mean that it is unconditionally true. Think about the countless times when the science was wrong. Is that still possible or are we beyond that point in society. Scientific findings continue to change and evolve, even to this day. My conclusion is that we must end fossil fuel burning because well will run out one day, not because there is a crisis.
This is what really ties everything together for me. Those two examples, as challenging as they were are absolutely nothing in comparison with something like transitioning the entire world over to renewables. Such a feat would go outside of the scientific domain, meaning all countries would have to agree and successfully implement them.
Then comes my argument against the middle ground, and that is specifically with solar and wind energy. It is not efficient. If we were to expand out the sector (which we are doing now I guess), it takes way more space and here is the big part- highly toxic rare earth minerals. We would have to mine so much out the earth that the results would be catastrophic. And we might not even have enough of those. Then there is the issue of wind turbines and solar panels not lasting forever and eventually degrading. My city has become a graveyard for decommissioned wind turbines and there are way more out there in those fields than you would probably think. I think that decommissioned wind turbine blades are the biggest oversized truck loads I have seen in my entire life. Have you ever been up close to one? They are huge! Then I learned that a huge chunk of them are usually fiberglass and thus not very recyclable. I guess solar is smaller but the lifespan on those is only supposed to be about 40 years as well.
You literally have no idea about all of the different sources I use to learn about these things. I just like posting the biased conservative cites to drive some of you crazy.
It is almost as if I really do believe they are clowns.
I posted the main reason with safety and the environment above, but is goes without saying that it will also be more expensive, shipping it across the sea gives chance for oil spill, and that having essentially terrorist organizations control my source of energy is not something I would root for. But that is just me.
Hahaha that last part gives me the tickles. While I most definitely respect your service to your country, and thus your service to society if you are a “good” country, I cannot help but notice that all Greek men are required to serve in the military for some time (maybe I am mistaken?), and that your military has not been too impressive in the last hundred years (no offense intended). At least not in a significant way compared to larger countries. It is almost as if you are telling me that since you are an ex-military officer that your opinion here is possibly more well-informed. And maybe it is. However, one of my grandfathers and my two great grandfathers served in some of the most significant wars in history in one of the greatest militaries in the world, and all of them would disagree with you on this matter at hand. One of them literally helped defend your entire continent to take out the Nazis and prevent the Soviets from taking a larger stronghold then they did. You and I may disagree on a lot of elements of communism, but I would hope that we could at least agree that putting your country under Soviet rule for a little while would not have been a good idea. Though maybe it would change your opinion about communism, I really don’t know.
So, you being a Greek ex-military officer would, quite literally, not define your opinion as superior. Your experience may influence you opinion, just as it would with my familial elders, but it is why you think the way you do that really counts. I am going off on a tangent now though.
I respect your comments because you are an extremely intelligent human being who sacrifices a lot of your time to share your opinion and often have some very interesting answers and explanations, not because you have credentials that are hard to understand how they apply without deeper meaning. That strategy is great so long as we are ready to go right away with drilling in the US when the Taliban either bleed us dry financially or shut us out. And it takes time to set those operations up and get the oil flowing. Having a lack of power or transportation is a very very bad thing, even for short periods of time. So no, we are better off relying on ourselves for the oil. When things get rough, it is always nice to have energy as the folks down in Texas will tell you. We have plenty in our country till an alternative becomes available, and then if the whole climate crisis is real at least we will not have used up large pockets in the Middle East, hopefully. Sounds like a win-win for the environment in many ways.
I almost skipped this, and while I think it is very innovative and perhaps an amazing breakthrough, I don’t think large batteries are a definite solution to the problem. Coming from my knowledge of how long batteries tend to last as well as those toxic metals I talked about earlier (which are in batteries as well), this is probably not going to work as well as they hope it will. I guess we will see though in the next ten to twenty years. It is way to early to say we have a reliable answer here. I am willing to bet that this will die out of the public eye the more things break, have to be wasted in many cases, and replaced.
Nonetheless, I have never heard about that and I think it is pretty cool.
You are getting hosed Jeth, I could not imagine paying eight bucks a gallon. And I really have a hard time believing that everyone in your country is in a better position financially then we are. Your shocking unemployment rate supports that theory. But maybe you could help me out there as well as I am not too knowledgeable about that.
I’ll just respond on the part about bias, since I think it’s the most important thing I’d have to say, and I have no time now to go into the rest (but I may respond later 
)
This makes no sense at all: my friend Steve keeps telling me that 2+2 = 5, I don’t believe him, but it seems he’s not going to stop. So I’ll just accept it. 
What…?
Why would you ever want to accept bias? If you want to buy a new car, do you go to that guy wearing a Toyota costume who tells you he has all the statistics gathered, and that Toyota cars are by far the cheapest, cleanest, safest, fastest and longest-lasting cars out there, and then buy a Toyota? Or do you think “hmm, maybe this guy has different motives and I should look for an unbiased source”.
I’m not saying that the information that RedState provides is false by definition, but I am saying that about half of what you’ve presented from them either isn’t objective information, or is objectively true information presented in a subjective context. Taking them as a source makes it very hard to find out which parts are actually true, and which parts are opinions or straight out lies. Of course Toyota cars may actually be the cheapest, or the safest, without being the others, but how can I trust that if I asked Toyota?
How can I trust my toothpaste is the best toothpaste, if every toothpaste commercial tells me that 9 out of 10 dentists recommends their brand?
I agree with you here. Developing solar and wind energy won’t be enough, far from it. We will need in addition
- to save energy: house insulation…
- nuclear energy (I know it’s a heresy for pro-environmentalists but we don’t have the technology to avoid its use if we want to stop burning hydrocarbons)
- research in renewable energy (including solar and wind)
- research to improve energy efficiency of vehicles.
Maybe people will adapt, and probably people in wealthy countries will adapt more easily than people from developing countries. It doesn’t mean adaptation will be quick and easy, without causing an economic crisis for decades. But more importantly, the climate crisis in developing countries coupled with population explosion may have catastrophic consequences: famines, massive migrations, wars, rise of extremist movements,…
Well, maybe the world will have adapted anyway by year 2100 but we don’t want to wait until there…
I privately explained to the moderators that I am exiting this community for the time being due to censorship for expressing my own views on a matter and being told that they could be potentially offensive. While I understand that we want a clean and safe environment on here, and that I don’t have the authority to make the decisions, I am not happy with this specific case. Thank you to all of those who taught me much and had good times with me.
If you ever wish to play a game with me/and or talk, don’t hesitate to on the main OGS page via games and private chat. Unless I get banned there as well.
I had a lovely gif for the occasion but unfortunately I spent it on another grand exit.
I don’t know which post of @Go_Board was censored and why but as a general principle I consider that moderators are always right. Moderating a forum is a difficult task, I have some experience with that since I am a moderator on another forum. So I wouldn’t mind if moderators judge necessary to erase some of my posts (including this one).
On the other hand I think that @Go_Board has strong opinions but is not disrespectful of people he is interacting with, and is not continuously flooding the forum with controversial opinions. In comparison I’ve seen far worse elsewhere.