17 Responses to “You Win, Irony”

1. #1 |  Mattocracy |  May 11th, 2009 at 11:31 am

   I love it when irony wins.

2. #2 |  av |  May 11th, 2009 at 11:35 am

   Wow.

   They were at sea for almost three weeks and were unable to complete a 580 mile trip.

   Looks like this carbon free stuff is pretty tough.

3. #3 |  Edwin Sheldon |  May 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am

   I am speechless.

4. #4 |  thomasblair |  May 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

   Even better that the BBC writer doesn’t seem to realize it.

5. #5 |  Newbie |  May 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

   Yes this is ironic… but carbon-based fuel is still killing our planet, so what your point?

   How about this: Carbon-based lives on the edge of extinction by irrational dependence on carbon-based fuel. Now that an irony that should be getting headlines. Your headline is a distraction to an absolutely essential issue.

6. #6 |  Chris A. |  May 11th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

   Since when was reliance on the cheapest and most efficient fuel irrational? It would seem to me that the epitome of irrationality would have been for environmental advocates during the late Industrial Revolution to demand a switch to new hypothetical technologies before they had been rendered economically cost-efficient, clamoring for combustion engines when coal was what was usable, available, and cheap. To me, such a hypothetical situation is no less ludicrous than advocating moving to economically inefficient technologies(many of which do not yet exist) in the present day before they have been refined to a point of usefulness.

7. #7 |  David |  May 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

   An excellent two-post summation of how environmentalists and conservatives talk past each other. One person talks about environmental safety, the other talks about economics, and never the twain shall meet.

8. #8 |  Mattocracy |  May 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

   David pretty much hit the nail on the head. Most people just don’t want to find a middle ground. It’s environmentally friendly while living in poverty or economically powerful and dying of heat stroke.

   Maybe if he environmentalists would concede to nuclear power the greedy capitalists could stop using coal.

9. #9 |  Newbie |  May 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

   Ha! Yes David, it was a fine example.

   Here’s my point, global warming is not an economic issue. Yes oil is cheap, but it is projected to make the Earth unlivable in a short amount of time. If you truly put that cost into an economic model (rather than just relying on supply and demand economics) than carbon based fuels would make no sense. You have to include externalities in your analysis.

   I would concede to nuclear power if I was convinced it didn’t pose the same Earth ending threat.

10. #10 |  Boyd Durkin |  May 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Captain Blackbeard thinks these eco-hippies be arrrful sailors.

11. #11 |  Jim Collins |  May 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    I’ve yet to see anything that proves Global Warming caused by CO2 as anything more than a theory. In the 70′s I was taught in Science class that we were due for another Ice Age. Untill there is more proof I don’t see why we should trash our way of living. I have no problem with reducing pollution (I don’t consider CO2 pollution), but if we were serious we would take another look at nuclear power. The Navy has been operating reactors for over 50 years without a serious incident. Solar and wind are not viable solutions at this time, maybe down the road, who knows. You aren’t going to make the Enviro-freaks happy until we are back living in caves.

12. #12 |  ChrisD |  May 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Newbie,

    “Unlivable,” “short amount of time?” If you tempered these claims a little, you would probably get more support on here.

    The French already get something like 80% of domestic power from nukes.

13. #13 |  cliff |  May 11th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Personally, an ice age would just suck since I hate being cold. So, if we can do anything to warm up the earth, I’m all for it.

14. #14 |  Spleen |  May 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    Yes oil is cheap, but it is projected to make the Earth unlivable in a short amount of time.

    Assuming oil is singlehandedly causing the temperature increase seen in climate change alarmist computer models, 1.2 degrees in 100 years is unlivable in a short time?

15. #15 |  Newbie |  May 11th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    You all read too much George Will. The global warming theory is universally accepted. The only real debate is about what will be the consequences and what can we do about it. True though, its not just oil, its also coal.

    And how do you temper a claim when you are talking about the end of live as we know it on earth? Its like telling an abortion opponent that “if you didn’t call it murder maybe we could have a discussion.”

16. #16 |  ChrisD |  May 11th, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Newbie,

    You’re wrong. I’ve talked about this to a researcher at NCAR. He says climatologists run about 2 to 1 for man-made causes of global warming. He also is very anti-global warming and blames man-made causes, but he recognizes the value of legitimate scientific debate. We should do our best to mitigate our potential effects on climate, but there is no sure-fire way to infer causality with weather.

    Go read some science history about all the theories that seemed “can’t miss” but did. Go read about how life and climate on earth are always changing and will never stay “as we know it.” You would temper your claims if you weren’t such a newbie b/c the direst predictions rarely come true. Simply asserting something is “universally accepted” doesn’t make it so. Seems you’ve chosen your name too well.

17. #17 |  primus |  May 12th, 2009 at 12:51 am

    As a Canadian, I fail to find fault with global warming. No matter what we do the temp will continue to rise for the next 50 years and the oceans will rise. We are focused on blamestorming when what we must do is prepare. A rise of a couple of degrees will be virtually un-noticable to anyone living away from the ocean. Climate has been changing since the beginning, and mankind has adapted. That is what we do. Let us commence adapting. Let us raise our ports, move our cities to higher ground instead of rebuilding them below sea level. Let us be smart.

---