nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Elon to dump Trump over climate bump

Anonymous Coward

Technological welfare queen

We'll see if Trump has the chutzpah to let him walk or if he'll bend the office of the President to the bratty Silicon Valley welfare queen.

7
75

Re: Technological welfare queen

@AC - Yes, he's much more closely aligned to the entrenched interests of the major telecom companies and airlines, those bastions of capitalism!

You're an idiot.

51
3
Silver badge
Devil

Re: Technological welfare queen

I was thinking more "drama queen" but yeah. Leave the Paris Accord, tell Elon "buh-bye, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"

It's time these silver-spoon silly-valley liberals learn they're not THAT important

9
73
Stop

D'oh!

The point is less about Musk and more about trying to prevent a climate catastrophe...

19
6
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

@ sorry, what?

"The point is less about Musk and more about trying to prevent a climate catastrophe..."

The wisdom of the day was to sacrifice animals/people to do this. This was based on belief and not reality which brings us to the MMCC co2 religion and its amusing belief set. I hear often how renewable's are cheaper than fossil fuel and if that is true then surely people will be happy that Trump has left the unnecessary Paris accord as we dont need to force people into making the change-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/29/if-this-is-true-professor-krugman-then-we-dont-need-the-paris-accord-do-we/#45de62b19274

However this is where the reality tends to kick the belief until it dies a painful death. What we are doing instead is building the over expensive renewable's which ramps up energy costs for no actual gain and then crying about how the poor and old cant afford to eat and heat. I guess we havnt moved very far from the 'good old days'

13
26

Re: D'oh!

@codejunky,

I certainly haven't heard that it's cheaper. I expect it to be more expensive in the short/medium term just like with any other change. Look at the introduction of CDs or DVDs - these were more expensive but better for what they did compared with the previous generation tech. Now they are cheaper because they are widely used and the production technology is robust, efficient etc.

I expect to pay more, either directly or via taxes, depending on how the funding is managed, whilst the alternatives are made available, refined and improved. This can happen. Look at how solar panels have dropped in price compared with when they were first developed now that their adoption has become more wide-spread.

The status quo is pointless; the existing fuel sources will "dry up" over the next few decades. That makes me think we should invest now so we have a way to avoid a crash at that point, even if we don't care about the environment. Of course, we should care about the environment too.

14
3
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

@ sorry, what?

"these were more expensive but better for what they did compared with the previous generation tech"

Unfortunately that doesnt seem to be the arguments I tend to hear. For example solar is a good idea in places where it works efficiently but we had the wonderful mis-selling problem in the UK where this great tech was deployed in places and even at angles that wouldnt work very well. Unfortunately for places like the UK it has caused a significant shortage or energy production and extremely higher prices for no benefit.

"The status quo is pointless; the existing fuel sources will "dry up" over the next few decades"

No. Just no. Dry up my arse who is telling you that rubbish?

7
14
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

"for no benefit"

In a hundred years, when regrettably you won't be around to see it, your great-great-grandchildren will, because of people like you and The Neon Buffoon, be living in a badly degraded environment. The fact that your uninformed beliefs prevent you from seeing this doesn't entitle you to badmouth the people who actually know what they're talking about.

20
8
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

@ Bloodbeastterror

"The fact that your uninformed beliefs prevent you from seeing this doesn't entitle you to badmouth the people who actually know what they're talking about."

You talk of facts and belief but that sounds like a belief. Care to drop in some facts of these benefits of poor performing energy generation which increase prices for less power? The winter fuel allowance was brought in to help the old cope with the devastating 'green' policies which were nothing of the kind.

5
7
Facepalm

Re: D'oh!

@codejunky,

Are you telling me that we have endless supplies of petroleum and natural gas? The fact that we are looking at the (potentially dirty) fracking approach to access shale gas, or how companies are doing deep-sea drilling (BP anyone) are both clear indicators that we are exhausting the easy-access fuel sources.

Please get your head out of the sand and start giving a damn about what comes next instead of ignoring the scary prospect of a world plunged into bigger and more wide-spread fuel wars.

7
4
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

@ sorry, what?

"Are you telling me that we have endless supplies of petroleum and natural gas?"

No. I am telling you your claim that it will dry up in the next few decades is total utter twaddle.

"The fact that we are looking at the (potentially dirty) fracking approach to access shale gas, or how companies are doing deep-sea drilling (BP anyone) are both clear indicators that we are exhausting the easy-access fuel sources."

That is a massively different statement. Easy to access is an interesting metric of technological progress. You will find it is quicker and cheaper to set up and run a fracking drilling system than the old style ones which is why OPEC is now struggling to push up prices. Potentially dirty covers most things we do. It depends on how we choose to do it.

"Please get your head out of the sand and start giving a damn about what comes next instead of ignoring the scary prospect of a world plunged into bigger and more wide-spread fuel wars."

Interestingly this is not the case. Fuel wars are pointless as shale fracking has provided a much more abundant supply around the globe. Combine that with say solar for the countries where it is efficient and the energy problems start becoming government imposed. If we are determined for a low co2 option (push up the prices) then nuclear is a valid option. I do think of what comes next. And a self imposed poverty situation sounds reckless and stupid just to appease the gods or whatever religion.

6
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: D'oh!

Preventing a catastrophe has to be a good thing.The question is do we know there is going to be a catastrophe and do we understand enough to prevent it?

The climate is changing. No one can sensibly deny that as the scientific evidence shows that the climate has always been changing and by inference it will continue to do so. Is human activity changing the climate? It probably is as we are releasing C02 that was trapped by life millions of years ago and changing vegetation patterns around the globe. Are we changing it significantly or minimally? I don't know, as the climate is very very complex and no one knows how it would be changing without the human impact.

I would like to think that climate scientists who are paid to study these things know the answer to these questions. They claim to know the answers (well that is their job) but I have yet to see any evidence that they really understand how climate works. If they truly understood it they would be able to make models that predict the future climate. Currently their models use hindcasting and are very good at predicting the climate in the past but fail to predict what is coming. Their knowledge is incomplete.

Until we can predict climate we are guessing. Guessing that a catastrophe is coming and guessing that proposed actions will avert it, with no way of assessing if the actions were effective. This is not science.

8
4

Re: Technological welfare queen

Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of several hundred billion-with-a-b dollars in the US alone every year, but OK, it's Musk who's the welfare queen.

13
6
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: D'oh!

"Unfortunately for places like the UK it has caused a significant shortage or energy production and extremely higher prices for no benefit."

I'll leave this here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40058074

1
2
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

@ Lost all faith...

I am not sure if your backing up my point with that article or if you think it refutes it.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Technological welfare queen

Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of several hundred billion-

Wrong, you are confusing reduction of tax with payment for nothing. This straw-man gets used every time someone points out just how expensive the unreliable renewable energy con is.

4
5

Re: Technological welfare queen

"Wrong, you are confusing reduction of tax..." Well, a subsidy by any other name, etc.

4
2
Silver badge

Re: Technological welfare queen

@ spacecadet66

"Well, a subsidy by any other name, etc."

Not stealing and gift are 2 entirely different actions. Not taking someone elses earnings is not the same as giving someone someone elses money.

2
6

Re: Technological welfare queen

"Not stealing." Careful how you slant the language, you might fall off.

5
4
Silver badge

Re: Technological welfare queen

@ spacecadet66

""Not stealing." Careful how you slant the language, you might fall off."

What do you call taking/confiscating from someone through threat of force? But even if you prefer a different word the action is still different. The point still stands. And I am still upright.

3
4
Bronze badge

Re: D'oh!

>The winter fuel allowance was brought in to help the old cope with the devastating 'green' policies which were nothing of the kind.

Was it bollocks.

You really are an arse at both ends.

5
2
Bronze badge

Re: D'oh!

> shale fracking

Fracking is proof of the arrival of peak oil* - predicted 40-odd years ago (when I was studying this stuff). The industry scrambles towards unconventional sources, as the easy ones dry up.

*Note that 'peak oil' doesn't mean 'the oil is running out'. It means that production has reached a peak (while demand continues to rise).

4
2
Bronze badge

Re: D'oh!

>I have yet to see any evidence that they really understand how climate works.

Which tells me that you haven't really looked. There have been five IPCC reports (which a plethora of citations in each). Go look.

3
3

Re: Technological welfare queen

Feel free to continue thinking that if it helps you get through your day.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

@ strum

"Was it bollocks."

go on then what was the winter fuel allowance brought in for?

"Fracking is proof of the arrival of peak oil"

Is it? I thought it was proof of technological improvement giving us a capability we didnt have before in an affordable means that we can use to access the same fuel but significantly cheaper.

"You really are an arse at both ends."

Only in your fantasies. And I dont need to know about those thanks.

4
2
Silver badge

Re: Technological welfare queen

@ spacecadet66

"Feel free to continue thinking that if it helps you get through your day."

I am guessing you dont have the capability to explain? I am fairly sure you should be able to understand the difference between taking from someone vs gifting to someone. So if you have a different view that is supportable beyond ideology/belief then feel free to share it.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Technological welfare queen

PRSIDENT TRUMO (portus) has no need of PARIS becUse HE Has the flagrant LADY MELLENCAMP right next to him. And beside he owns HIS OWN HOTELS so doesn't MEED FABLURS FROM THE HILTONS. that's what makes him A GRATE PRESIDENTT.

2
4
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

"Care to drop in some facts of these benefits"

No. I do not engage in discussion with people unable or unwilling to listen or understand.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: D'oh!

@strum

I have looked many times and yes they have produced reports and models in abundance. They have ideas and theorys which are all very convincing but when they model them to test the theory the model fails. In science if you test a hypothesis and it fails that is incotrovertible evidence that the theory you believed in is false and your understanding is incomplete.

What we don't know is if they are almost right and just need a tweak or hoplessly wrong missing key climate drivers, or indeed that the system is inherrantly cahotic and imposible to model.

What we do know is that all the reports and citations in the world mean little if the climate stubbornly fails to behave as they believe it should.

5
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

@ Bloodbeastterror

"No. I do not engage in discussion with people unable or unwilling to listen or understand."

On one hand I smile knowing that that attitude. If you are not willing to discuss with anyone who does not blindly and unquestioningly agree with you then your beliefs will die out as no self respecting person would just accept your statements as fact.

On the other hand I wonder if it is your loss or the loss of people who have the will to discuss ideas and perspectives. If is plausible you might have something factual to add to the discussion but your lack of will or ability to express it ensures it will remain out of the discussion. And if you are not willing to discuss with people who do not unquestioningly agree with you then how can you improve your understanding?

Of course if what you mean is you have no facts you could have simply replied 'No'.

2
3

Re: Technological welfare queen

"Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of several hundred billion..."

Ah yes, the old fossil fuel subsidy bollocks.

Fully destroyed here...

http://euanmearns.com/the-appalling-truth-about-energy-subsidies/

"We are comparing apples with oranges but normalising for energy production, the renewables subsidies are 8.4 times larger and amount to 94% of the value of the energy produced. This latter statistic is hard to believe, but if it is close to true, it suggests that new renewables are contributing virtually nothing to society."

3
1
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

The point is less about Musk and more about trying to prevent a climate catastrophe...

Isn't Musk behind Tesla, who make "performance cars"? Not exactly a bastion of "clean and green" there!

Oh, I hear they're doing electric cars now.

Well, if electric cars used perhaps some home-based generation or were only charged in places away from homes they might be cleaner to some extent (if they're more efficient c/w diesel) they might be better, but here's the thing they don't tell you. Electric cars require electricity. That electricity is generally made in very dirty coal power plants. More electric cars means more power plants. Given the greeny fear-mongering about Nuclear power plants, new plants will still be coal or other stuff (or even worse, wind - requiring both wind and even more coal plants).

But it gets worse.

People will want to re-charge their cars when they get home each night. This will be somewhere in the range of a new oven per car per house, except it'll be running for a few more hours (per car) than your average oven, and probably needing a higher amperage for the charging port as well. That will mean the transmission lines will need to be upgraded. Streets like mine and so many others around the world have them underground, so not just the resources in making the wires but HUGE resources in digging up the old wires and burying the new ones. All the transformers will need to be replaced. Small substations will take on the dimensions of larger ones, while large substations could become much much larger (though there will probably be some in-fill of new kit before they need more room).

An influx of electric cars will require a significant upgrade of our generating and transmission systems, otherwise they will lead to a lot of blackouts, which will lead to people having to use alternatives while their electric cars sit idle. New suburbs might be OK as they can be built from the ground-up with the appropriate hardware in place.

Here's a free tip though that Mr Musk could be doing with his cars if he really was interested in cutting pollution - cover every surface of his cars with solar panels. True, they would not be able to charge the car up inside a day and would largely be useless in parking buildings (though lit buildings would give a little energy), but they would provide an extra boost to those cars that can get sunlight, and that would require less charging at the end of the day (though I have yet to see the math on a) whether the panels could pay for themselves or b) the resource cost of manufacture/added weight would wipe out their energy gain).

Hybrids on the other hand, they have a few things going for them from what I know.

I would love for electric cars to succeed. I'd love for something to replace the oil we burn by the tonne every second on this planet, and the non-carbon1 pollutants that get pumped into the air. But electric cars as things are now? No. Not till we can recharge them without the massive resource sink that would be needed with today's technology.

1 Carbon of course is not the big baddie that it is often made out to be. There's a lot more to worry about coming out of tail pipes. But either way, reducing our oil use (and other resources that pollute heavily either when extracted or burnt) would take care of the supposed carbon problem. Don't use bullshit that only adds to the pollution (eg wind farms), use stuff that can actually help our planet by reducing pollution and mining, and de-forestation. I'm sure if Mr Musk was really keen on it, he could dump a bit more of his money into appropriate research? If he matched me on a % of income donated basis, well... Course like so many wealthy people there'll be excuses as to why he cannot actually do that.

0
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: D'oh!

The status quo is pointless; the existing fuel sources will "dry up" over the next few decades. That makes me think we should invest now so we have a way to avoid a crash at that point, even if we don't care about the environment. Of course, we should care about the environment too.

Since my birth in the 70's I've been hearing just about yearly about how our oil reserves are "about to dry up" and run out.

I do believe it is a finite resource, and logically it must run out at some stage, but the stuff about "it is about to run out" is a problem in how it gets stated so often yet we're always a "few decades" away. At least, I hope we are still far enough away from that to see better stuff come along.

However, I do agree that we should be putting much effort into building systems and vehicles that will use much much less "fossil" resources and much more renewables. True renewable tech that doesn't waste resources and further damage the planet in the process.

I'm what some would call a "climate change denier" though I don't deny that climates change. I do disagree with the few "settled scientists" on it, sticking by the silent majority who know there's a lot more to the story. The big key thing though is that I am anti-waste and anti-pollution.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: D'oh!

*Note that 'peak oil' doesn't mean 'the oil is running out'. It means that production has reached a peak (while demand continues to rise).

Hmm.. Interesting this "peak oil" thingy. Didn't we first reach "peak oil" around 1998 or so? Hasn't oil demand risen by quite a large amount since then? Are there oil shortages? No?

Then what is this "peak oil production" we keep hearing of if oil companies can currently match demand and even, as was the case last year (or 2015?) where they had to cut back production to keep the prices high because there was an over-supply issue (ie the oil producers were producing too much and this meant prices would fall).

I don't doubt that oil is a finite resource, or if it is actually a mineral resource as opposed to fossil, then it is a resource where demand will outstrip production/renewal at some stage. But every time someone uses the claim "we're at peak production now and cannot possibly increase production" and then production increases significantly over time, well, that makes them out to be either liars or un-informed. Either way, their argument, and other arguments they make, become rather doubtful. Of course, if you have some proof of current oil shortages that maybe "big oil" is somehow paying people to keep from reporting it or someshit? Maybe the reporters who know about these supposed shortages are being "disappeared" by "big oil" to "silence them"? Because you cannot have peak production, increased demand, and no shortage.

Some day we will actually hit "peak oil". We may even get surprised by a sudden drying up of a significant number of wells, but for now - well, it's been shown we're not yet at "peak production". I hope to see oil get overtaken by much better in my lifetime, even if it's a Thorium or other currently-plentiful finite resource. I long to see the filthy stuff pass from memory into history books. Sadly the current follies and refusal to go with some decent nuke stuff will see us even more dependent on oil (and far far worse, coal).

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: D'oh!

There have been five IPCC reports

IPCC.. An organisation found to have repeatedly falsified reports.

Why exactly should they be trusted?

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Technological welfare queen

Feel free to continue thinking that if it helps you get through your day.

At least he is thinking, unlike this wind-loving "science-is-settled" even-though-it-isn't twits.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: D'oh!

"Care to drop in some facts of these benefits"

No. I do not engage in discussion with people unable or unwilling to listen or understand.

IOW you can't.

1
0
Silver badge

Surprised?

Not like Musk doesn't have a huge vested interest with Climate change to thank for millions of tax payer $.

9
34
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Surprised?

yeah, "follow the money". The elitists get their profits while the rest of us suffer with higher energy costs, fewer jobs, lower wages as a result.

Why must _EVERY_ lefty/liberal solution *ALWAYS* do this? Answer: because they're NOT SOLUTIONS. They're TAKEOVERS.

CO2 doesn't warm the planet. It can't. It doesn't absorb infrared frequencies for normal temperatures. Maybe if you're above 60C or below -48C you might see some absorption. But it's INSIGNIFICANT in between. In other words, it doesn't do SQUAT to world temperatures in "the normal range". And yet, everybody jumps on the propoganda bandwagon of "it's CO2" and "carbon footprint" yotta yotta DESPITE the REAL SCIENCE saying that WATER is "the greenhouse gas" that makes the weather change and nobody's DARING to try and control THAT, not with a planet 3/4 covered with it...

It's JUST! NOT! POSSIBLE! for all of this carbon-credit-crap to even CHANGE anything, let alone STOP natural cycles from occurring.

But don't worry. The planet is cooling back down. It's a 70 year cycle after all. You know, in 1900 it was cold. In 1935 it was warm. In 1970 it was cold. In 2005 it was warm. And now we're on the downward slope of the curve, and picking up speed. You know it's pretty DAMN COLD out there right now, and it's almost JUNE, and I still have bags on the wind driven fans in the roof [which I do to limit their spinning during the winter, saves on heating]. NOrmally they'd be off in the spring and the air conditioner would be BLASTING. but it's freaking COLD out there right now. Go fig, "globl warming"... unless I'm *RIGHT* about the COOLING part of the cycle!!!

7
65
Silver badge

Re: Surprised?

Everything in the US government is just following money and power around. Trump would burn the world to ashes if it game him a moment of fame and fortune. Musk's money and power happens to be more in line with what's good for the US - materials R&D, advanced manufacturing, working solar power, and maybe even modernizing transportation.

28
5
Silver badge

Re: Surprised?

"It's JUST! NOT! POSSIBLE!"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

As I've said before, maybe about this very (aptly-named) person, random and pointless use of capitals is the sure sign that you can discount and dismiss the post (and the poster) as moronic.

28
2
Bronze badge

Re: Surprised?

"It's JUST! NOT! POSSIBLE!!

I think you need to go read some Svante Arrhenius papers. You'll only then have 111 years of further climate science to catch up on.

13
1
Silver badge

Re: Surprised?

Looks like you got that CAPSLOCK problem again mate.

8
1

Re: Surprised?

You are so right, the down votes from the climate change sheeples are funny. I hope they never start telling them that climate change is caused by witches, then we are back in the dark age.

7
22
Silver badge

Re: Surprised?

Bob, you should trying reading through your posts and ask yourself 'does this read like something AManFromMars would write?'.

If the answer is yes, then don't hit publish.

14
1
Silver badge

Re: Surprised?

Fascinating how people can post on a tech site, using tech that comes from things like the scientific process and consensus, and then can so blatantly ignore anything like that when it impinges on their own world view.

21
3
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Surprised?

I think you need to go read some Svante Arrhenius papers.

Which can be simply dismissed, Arrhenius being some ancient furriner doing science.

I also doubt that Bombastic Bob would be able to make it past the introductory paragraph.

8
2
Silver badge

Re: Surprised?

@ Triggerfish

"Fascinating how people can post on a tech site, using tech that comes from things like the scientific process and consensus, and then can so blatantly ignore anything like that when it impinges on their own world view."

People still defend windfarms, especially on shore! Some people still defend the Eurozone. Unfortunately the consensus of like minds seems to be enough for some without the need for facts or reality.

8
12
Silver badge

Re: Surprised?

People still defend windfarms, especially on shore! Some people still defend the Eurozone.

Windfarms

Are they not controversial? There seems to be no consensus on them yet.

Although worth noting a lot of the rabid supporters tend to ignore the science and engineering side because it doesn't fit into their world view.

Eurozone

What the heck has that got to do with scientific consensus?

5
1

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing