Riverwind Posted May 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) If we can focus on cutting down on burning fossil fuels, we will not only reduce CO2 emissions, but also reduce other problems as well. The best part is we don't even need to spend money on it, just shift taxation from income/business to consumption of fossil fuels.The bio fuel fiasco should be a lesson to everyone about unintended consequences. Back in 1994 Al Gore pushed through the ethonol bill. In 1999 he was bragging about how he championed the cause. Today, every environmentalist realizes biofuels were a big mistake.Similar issues will come up with every other source of energy. It is naive to pretend that some magic energy fairy exists and that getting rid of fossil fuels will solve the pollution problem. If we have a problem with pollution then we should tackle it directly. Taxing one sort of energy will simply make energy more expensive at time when energy prices are already skyrocketing. Edited May 2, 2008 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) The bio fuel fiasco should be a lesson to everyone about unintended consequences. Back in 1994 Al Gore pushed through the ethonol bill. In 1999 he was bragging about how he championed the cause. Today, every environmentalist realizes biofuels were a big mistake.Similar issues will come up with every other source of energy. It is naive to pretend that some magic energy fairy exists and that getting rid of fossil fuels will solve the pollution problem. If we have a problem with pollution then we should tackle it directly. I never thought biofuels were a good idea, and I doubt they even reduce carbon dioxide. How about reducing energy use altogether? Take the bus to work, carpool...walk, run or ride a bike (which would solve many health problems as well), live closer to work, buy a smaller car, turn out the lights, get rid of escalators and moving sidewalks (which again might help solve health problems), etc.... I also don't believe that just because no source of energy is "perfect" means that there is no better source of energy than fossil fuels. Edited May 2, 2008 by gc1765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 I also don't believe that just because no source of energy is "perfect" means that there is no better source of energy than fossil fuels.Non-renewable fossil fuels will likely dissappear on their own by 2100. We do not need to adopt special policies today to make this happen (other than make sure R&D into other energy sources is properly funded).OTOH - artifically increasing the cost of energy in the short term because some of some vague prejudice against fossil fuels will increase poverty and suffering. The skyrocketing food prices can only be partially blamed on biofuels - the high price of energy is the other cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Non-renewable fossil fuels will likely dissappear on their own by 2100. We do not need to adopt special policies today to make this happen (other than make sure R&D into other energy sources is properly funded). Considering we'll both probably be dead by 2100, I'm not sure how that helps us... OTOH - artifically increasing the cost of energy in the short term because some of some vague prejudice against fossil fuels will increase poverty and suffering. The skyrocketing food prices can only be partially blamed on biofuels - the high price of energy is the other cause. The difference is that the extra cost will go to government coffers, which could be used to offset the higher energy costs for those who can not afford it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 If oceans cause dramatic cooling - they also cause dramatic warming. If they cause dramatic warming then the effect of CO2 has been exaggerated. This should be obvious to anyone who is not a devoted member of the church of global warming. All that is obvious is that a dramatic effects can be caused by the oceans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 The bio fuel fiasco should be a lesson to everyone about unintended consequences. Back in 1994 Al Gore pushed through the ethonol bill. In 1999 he was bragging about how he championed the cause. Today, every environmentalist realizes biofuels were a big mistake. The mistake was to think that food for fuel was a good idea. Bio-mass waste is thought to be the most desirable form of ethanol but it is no where near commercially viable at the moment. Ethanol has existed in Canada since 1981 when the first plant was built in Manitoba. It was such a small scale use though as to not cause some of the problems we are seeing now. Ethanol is changing farm practices dramatically and affecting prices when supplies are already tight. The farm lobby has latched onto it an a farm support system. It is heavily subsidized and protected by mandates that tell the oil companies they have to blend it into their gas. Evidence is growing that there is more carbon produced from ethanol production simply because of the unintended consequences resulting from changing farm practices. Even the U.S. has reduced the subsidy as of last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 The mistake was to think that food for fuel was a good idea.It is also a big mistake to think that fossil fuels can be replaced without incurring significant economic costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 It is also a big mistake to think that fossil fuels can be replaced without incurring significant economic costs. Citation for the people who claimed that fossil fuels could be replaced without significant costs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Citation for the people who claimed that fossil fuels could be replaced without significant costs?Everyone who claims that we should reduce CO2 'just in case' the science happens to be right. People who understand how the energy system works would never make such a claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 A good example of why we should not be rushing to adopt radical changes to social policy based on the output of climate models.There are plently of environmental problems that we know are real (water quality, smog, land fills, etc). We would be better off spending money on those things instead of the CO2 bugbear. Exactly! Rosa Ambose announced a car battery recycling program that is ging to do alot to keep toxins out of landfills and she was condemned and eventually lost her job because she wasn't doing 'real' environmental work on Green house gas reductions. unreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Considering we'll both probably be dead by 2100, I'm not sure how that helps us... Well with that myopic attitude, why were you concerned about AGW int he first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Everyone who claims that we should reduce CO2 'just in case' the science happens to be right. People who understand how the energy system works would never make such a claim. This is a citation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 How do we stay the same,with the same standard of excessive living, we let a lot of people starve. Those you cannot see do not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Well with that myopic attitude, why were you concerned about AGW int he first place? What, I'm not allowed to be concerned for future generations AND the current generation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 What, I'm not allowed to be concerned for future generations AND the current generation? You negated an idea simply by saying it won't do us any good because we won't be alive then. So why are you concerned about AGW? What has AGW done to the present generation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 You negated an idea simply by saying it won't do us any good because we won't be alive then. No, I negated not doing anything just because the problem will go away in a hundred years. By that logic, we shouldn't worry about fixing healthcare, or reducing taxes, or reducing crime until 2100... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 No, I negated not doing anything just because the problem will go away in a hundred years.By that logic, we shouldn't worry about fixing healthcare, or reducing taxes, or reducing crime until 2100... Very bad comparisons since healthcare, taxes and crime are real problems today. CO2 is an imaginary problem that might cuase serious problems 100 years from now but we don't really know for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Very bad comparisons since healthcare, taxes and crime are real problems today. CO2 is an imaginary problem that might cuase serious problems 100 years from now but we don't really know for sure. Again, I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about all of the carcinogens that are released along with CO2 when fossil fuels are burned. I don't think anyone would argue that is not a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Is it too late to nominate Al Gore for a Razzie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Again, I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about all of the carcinogens that are released along with CO2 when fossil fuels are burned. I don't think anyone would argue that is not a problem. Did it ever occur to you that burning fossil fuels saves lives? Can you imagine what our health system would be like without the money generated from the oil and gas industry? Without fossil fuels, just how many have-provinces would Canada have? That's right, the big "0." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) Did it ever occur to you that burning fossil fuels saves lives? Sure it saves lives in some cases...but wasting fossil fuels (for example, driving to the store instead of walking) does not save lives and if anything it does the opposite. Edited May 2, 2008 by gc1765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Sure it saves lives in some cases...but wasting fossil fuels (for example, driving to the store instead of walking) does not save lives and if anything it does the opposite. I suppose you're right if you run over someone with your car. Aside from that, having to close hospitals would likely be of greater consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 (edited) You miss the point. The claim that the ocean currents may "temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming" is pure CYA crap. I got the point. It's just not a very interesting or forceful point. The real point seems more to be that you trust the authors of the notice to correctly do the bit that, taken out of context, you take to undermine AGW; but then you deem them incompetent as soon as their expert opinion diverges from your predetermined view. Modifications to a hypothesis and concomitant predictions are bog-standard in science, where conclusions are typically balance-of-evidence. Haven't we seen enough of this "I found a scientist who revised a claim -- therefore the whole "theory" is WRONG!!11!!" line of nonsense from creationists over the years? Edited May 4, 2008 by Kitchener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 But Kitchener, that's what's so hilarious here. Temporarily?That's like writing both figuratively and in fact a huge blank cheque. Why would you say such a thing, when even in that brief note the authors make specific reference to the likely timescales involved? I think you need more carefully to read what they actually wrote before pronouncing on what it means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 (edited) The real point seems more to be that you trust the authors of the notice to correctly do the bit that, taken out of context, you take to undermine AGW; but then you deem them incompetent as soon as their expert opinion diverges from your predetermined view.You are missing context. Anyone who has looked into this issue realizes quite quickly that natural influences on climate are potentially huge and that we have little understanding of what they are. However, this lack of understanding has not stopped the IPCC and a number of climate scientists from claiming that we do understand these natural processes enough to make the claim that CO2 is the *only* explaination for the 20th century warming. This paper is interesting because it, despite the numerous weasel words and caveats, acknowledges that natural influences can be as significant as CO2. I realize that the people who wrote this particular paper do insist that these influences are 'temporary' and that they still cling to the CO2 hypotheses. However, this paper does represent a major shift in the was AGW alarmists talk about natural influences. I believe it is the first step in the process that will ultimately completely discredit the IPCC and the 'science' it is pushing. Edited May 4, 2008 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.