Climate Change Poll

[lukin]

you're an inconsequential gnat with nothing substantive to offer. By the way, what's an eco-greenie? (feel free to reference your favoured go-to "Green Agenda" website... you know, the one you copied copiously from (verbatim, word for word), while presuming to chastise others for not having any original thoughts )

I haven't read any original thoughts on your behalf. You just believe everything you read without realizing there's another side to the debate. Like i said, Al Gore is making millions on complacent minions like you.

[TimG]

outright CO2 reduction is a part of the solution.

CO2 reductions measures cost a lot of money for small reductions (if any) yet these are the center piece of every policy being put forward today. I will not support any policy that wastes money while accomplishing nothing.

Apparently, such policy options as target efficiencies, increased sustainability, nuclear, CCS, cap™, cap&dividend, etc., to you, can simply be couched in terms of "CO2 emission"... and easily dismissed.

Yes - as long as the focus is reducing emissions the policies will accomplish nothing. The only possible solution find a new source of power that is cheaper than fossil fuels.

Your honest broker parroting presumes to exclude scientists from making/offering policy alternatives and recommendations.

Scientists are entitled to their opinion on policy like everyone else but they have no special expertise and their opinion on policy carries no more weight than anyone elses.

you'd be hard(er) pressed to accept such things as roadmap solution strategies that presume to address interim stages, working to alleviate the absolute worst case scenarios, by, for example, successfully staged, dependent and/or cooperative, policy alternatives.

Again - the problem is coming up with a plan that has a chance of accomplishing something useful. If I saw such a plan I would support it. So far, all I have seen are plans for income redistribution from the middle class to a class of scammers with political connections.

Some times, having the courage to do nothing in the face of uncertainty is the right thing to do.

Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

you're an inconsequential gnat with nothing substantive to offer. By the way, what's an eco-greenie? (feel free to reference your favoured go-to "Green Agenda" website... you know, the one you copied copiously from (verbatim, word for word), while presuming to chastise others for not having any original thoughts )

I haven't read any original thoughts on your behalf. You just believe everything you read without realizing there's another side to the debate. Like i said, Al Gore is making millions on complacent minions like you.

if there is another side to the debate, please... you be it's poster-boy!

your fixation on Pliny's Pope is quite telling... Pliny's Pope carries no real significance today... other than, of course, acting as a target lightning rod for weak-minded and simplistic types... like you.

[waldo]

Scientists are entitled to their opinion on policy like everyone else but they have no special expertise and their opinion on policy carries no more weight than anyone elses.

ah yes, from the parroted Pielke honest broker school - good luck with that - hey?

Again - the problem is coming up with a plan that has a chance of accomplishing something useful. If I saw such a plan I would support it. So far, all I have seen are plans for income redistribution from the middle class to a class of scammers with political connections.

Some times, having the courage to do nothing in the face of uncertainty is the right thing to do.

you saw such a plan - a 'roadmap plan'... it was presented to you - the International Energy Agencies, "Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050". You simply dismissed it - outright! Did you (inadvertently) choose to ignore it in your above reply... or do you actually dismiss it as, as you say, "income redistribution from the middle class to a class of scammers with political connections"? Really? Once again, for reference:

- the press release, 'exec summary' format -

IEA - Energy Technology Perspectives 2010

(of course, I previously linked to the 700+ page full report)

[TimG]

ah yes, from the parroted Pielke honest broker school - good luck with that - hey?

Ad homs do not change the truth. The opinion of a climate scientist on energy policy is as relevant as their opinion on fixing my carburetor. Of course, you sound like the the type of person who would get medical advice from Jim 'Renaissance Man' Hansen. I don't share your credulity.

ah the International Energy Agencies, "Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050". You simply dismissed it - outright!

Because it is nothing but wishful thinking based on numbers pulled out of hat. To be credible a plan has to start by making it clear that there a no plausible solutions to the CO2 emission problem today and that there is no guarantee that one will be found in the near future. Any "plan" that asserts that success is possible or likely is not credible.

IOW, a credible plan must start with adaptation as the primary focus with alternate energy technologies as a side line just in case a miracle happens. Any plan that talks about emission reduction targets is nonsense because targets cannot be met until the technology is found.

[waldo]

Ad homs do not change the truth. The opinion of a climate scientist on energy policy is as relevant as their opinion on fixing my carburetor. Of course, you sound like the the type of person who would get medical advice from Jim 'Renaissance Man' Hansen. I don't share your credulity.

ha! Yes, certainly... look to those "honest brokers"! Obviously, you don't trust scientists - so, of course, you project your distrust by casting them in such a dismissive pattern... TimG says, "why bother to rely on scientists for policy impact assessments, for policy recommendations, for guidance, for advice... don't you know, that's a job for Pielke's honest broker non-scientist brigade!"

Because it is nothing but wishful thinking based on numbers pulled out of hat. To be credible a plan has to start by making it clear that there a no plausible solutions to the CO2 emission problem today and that there is no guarantee that one will be found in the near future. Any "plan" that asserts that success is possible or likely is not credible.

IOW, a credible plan must start with adaptation as the primary focus with alternate energy technologies as a side line just in case a miracle happens. Any plan that talks about emission reduction targets is nonsense because targets cannot be met until the technology is found.

notwithstanding your presumptive failure starting point, you wrap your delay/denial in terms of nothing is possible, nothing can/should be done. Of course, you conveniently ignore what actually can be done - today, relying on technologies of today. You over-emphasize R&D and missing technologies while ignoring parallel strategies within phased roadmap scenarios. Your "adaptation as the primary focus", without considerations toward accompanying mitigation/prevention, is a recipe for do nothing/delay - of course, it's clear you would latch on to it.

[lukin]

ha! Yes, certainly... look to those "honest brokers"! Obviously, you don't trust scientists - so, of course, you project your distrust by casting them in such a dismissive pattern... TimG says, "why bother to rely on scientists for policy impact assessments, for policy recommendations, for guidance, for advice... don't you know, that's a job for Pielke's honest broker non-scientist brigade!"

notwithstanding your presumptive failure starting point, you wrap your delay/denial in terms of nothing is possible, nothing can/should be done. Of course, you conveniently ignore what actually can be done - today, relying on technologies of today. You over-emphasize R&D and missing technologies while ignoring parallel strategies within phased roadmap scenarios. Your "adaptation as the primary focus", without considerations toward accompanying mitigation/prevention, is a recipe for do nothing/delay - of course, it's clear you would latch on to it.

Do you drive a vehicle, waldo?

[waldo]

Do you drive a vehicle, waldo?

why? Do you have something to sell... other than your denier bullshit?

[TimG]

why bother to rely on scientists for policy impact assessments, for policy recommendations, for guidance, for advice.

What makes you think that scientists are even remotely qualified to make such assessments? If we look medine we have specialists called 'doctors' whose entire job is assessing the science and making recommendations to people. Doctors do not do original medical science research. That task falls to various biologists, chemists and other specialists who work behind the scenes playing with rats. An "honest broker" in climate science is the equivalent of a doctor who has a clear ethical obligation to consider the harms caused by a treatment before recommending it. Climate scientists are not trained to be the equivalent of a doctor and they have no business pretending they are qualified for that role.

you conveniently ignore what actually can be done - today, relying on technologies of today.

Other than nuclear there is nothing available today that is worth deploying at a large scale. Nor are the any large savings to be made with 'efficiency improvements'. That picture could change with new technology which is why R&D should be part of the picture. You argue as much as you like but governmenst will eventually be forced to follow a plan like the one I outlined because it is only viable option. All other CO2 reductions plans are snake oil and faerie dust. Edited August 10, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

ha! Yes, certainly... look to those "honest brokers"! Obviously, you don't trust scientists - so, of course, you project your distrust by casting them in such a dismissive pattern... TimG says, "why bother to rely on scientists for policy impact assessments, for policy recommendations, for guidance, for advice... don't you know, that's a job for Pielke's honest broker non-scientist brigade!"

What makes you think that scientists are even remotely qualified to make such assessments? If we look medine we have specialists called 'doctors' whose entire job is assessing the science and making recommendations to people. Doctors do not do original medical science research. That task falls to various biologists, chemists and other specialists who work behind the scenes playing with rats. An "honest broker" in climate science is the equivalent of a doctor who has a clear ethical obligation to consider the harms caused by a treatment before recommending it. Climate scientists are not trained to be the equivalent of a doctor and they have no business pretending they are qualified for that role.

ya, ya... in your Pielke honest broker world, that's why one should completely ignore advise based on technical knowledge and experience... and leave the heavy lifting to Pielke's brigade of used-car salesmen fronting any/all product without regard to quality/fit/implication/impact/risk/etc. Clearly,to some, Pielke's poli-sci degree fully qualifies his interjection of the honest broker into the mix... should we be so surprised it was one so readily adopted by the delay/denier camp - of course not! BTW, don't worry about buying those broken and improperly positioned/sized goods - hey?

notwithstanding your presumptive failure starting point, you wrap your delay/denial in terms of nothing is possible, nothing can/should be done. Of course, you conveniently ignore what actually can be done - today, relying on technologies of today. You over-emphasize R&D and missing technologies while ignoring parallel strategies within phased roadmap scenarios. Your "adaptation as the primary focus", without considerations toward accompanying mitigation/prevention, is a recipe for do nothing/delay - of course, it's clear you would latch on to it.

Other than nuclear there is nothing available today that is worth deploying at a large scale. Nor are the any large savings to be made with 'efficiency improvements'. That picture could change with new technology which is why R&D should be part of the picture. You argue as much as you like but governmenst will eventually be forced to follow a plan like the one I outlined because it is only viable option. All other CO2 reductions plans are snake oil and faerie dust.

nonsense - as I stated, in a roadmap concept (like I presented through the IEA links) you make a start, a phased start, with parallel running initiatives that will bring forward (any) missing technology requirements through the phased roadmap abatement process. Everything to you is about accepted failure - from the onset... so, you advise, "don't do anything - we'll just adapt"! Your continual refrain is one that casts everything (the science and any presumed mitigation strategy) as guesses, as snake oil, as faerie dust. Although, one wonders why you even bother with that... clearly, you don't trust/accept the science, you've continually cast scientists as dishonest purveyors of junk science... just what are you responding to in your "Adapt-R-Us" fallback/delay mode? In your world there's no problem - and there won't be any problem to respond to... so why the need to adapt... why your emphasis on adaptation as the end-all/be all. Other than it fits the classic response/positioning of a Concern Troll - hey?

[TimG]

that's why one should completely ignore advise based on technical knowledge and experience.

Hansen has no expertise or knowledge that allows him determine whether shutting coal plants down is a sensible energy policy. It is rediculous to claim his opinion on the topic means anything. The same goes for every other climate scientist who thinks they are qualified to dispense advice on policy.

nonsense - as I stated, in a roadmap concept (like I presented through the IEA links) you make a start, a phased start, with parallel running initiatives that will bring forward (any) missing technology requirements through the phased roadmap abatement process.

All handwaving BS because technology does not automatically appear because someone writes a 'roadmap' and throws cash into R&D. One can identify the gaps and plan to invest in technology that might fill those gaps but any plan that puts a timeframe on when those technologies might be found and deployed is simply making stuff up.

I realize you really, really want to believe that intractable technical problems that engineers have been working on for 100 years can suddenly be solved if only governments would come up with the right 'plan'. But such thinking is naive. The market has already provided plenty of incentive to create these technologies and the fact that they do not exist is evidence that they are simply not commerically viable and no amount of government subsidy is likely to change that.

[lukin]

why? Do you have something to sell... other than your denier bullshit?

Just checking if you practice what you preach. Seeing how you gave a useless answer makes it loud and clear.

Denier = not easily fooled...not gullible....like waldo

[waldo]

Do you drive a vehicle, waldo?

why? Do you have something to sell... other than your denier bullshit?

Just checking if you practice what you preach. Seeing how you gave a useless answer makes it loud and clear.

Denier = not easily fooled...not gullible....like waldo

yes, clearly, your repeated attempts to personalize target questions to myself and other MLW members is a most superficial and easily recognized attempt to denigrate/disparage... I indulged over your Pliny's Pope question because, well, any time I can highlight Pliny's obsession, I'll jump for it. So, ya, your latest attempt was so obvious, even before your follow-up confirmation... as you say, your, "just checking if you practice what you preach" comment, shows you were waiting with baited breath. Would I offer up reference to driving multiple vehicles... or would I offer reference to driving a 'gas-guzzling' behemoth... or would I offer reference to driving a hybrid... or would I offer reference to not owning a vehicle... or... Buddy, you're just too easy!

[waldo]

Hansen has no expertise or knowledge that allows him determine whether shutting coal plants down is a sensible energy policy. It is rediculous to claim his opinion on the topic means anything. The same goes for every other climate scientist who thinks they are qualified to dispense advice on policy.

ah yes, the long tired Pielke focus on Hansen. So ya, clearly you favour Pielke's suggested reliance on honest broker type used-car salesmen to do policy impact technical assessments... of course you would! Your distrust of scientists clearly has you advocating for their absolute segregation within policy pursuits - of course, it would.

All handwaving BS because technology does not automatically appear because someone writes a 'roadmap' and throws cash into R&D. One can identify the gaps and plan to invest in technology that might fill those gaps but any plan that puts a timeframe on when those technologies might be found and deployed is simply making stuff up.

I realize you really, really want to believe that intractable technical problems that engineers have been working on for 100 years can suddenly be solved if only governments would come up with the right 'plan'. But such thinking is naive. The market has already provided plenty of incentive to create these technologies and the fact that they do not exist is evidence that they are simply not commerically viable and no amount of government subsidy is likely to change that.

talk about continued 'blowing smoke'. You keep harping on missing technologies, yet fail to exactly outline what's missing and why, for example, in the case of the IEA's 2010-2050 roadmap, over a protracted decades+ period, concerted effort/monies wouldn't result in the introduction of "whatever technologies you presume to suggest are missing". So, quite naturally (for you), you advocate a "do nothing" approach. Adapt-R-Us!!!

[TimG]

Your distrust of scientists clearly has you advocating for their absolute segregation within policy pursuits - of course, it would.

Answer the question: why is Hansen qualified to comment on energy policy?

talk about continued 'blowing smoke'. You keep harping on missing technologies, yet fail to exactly outline what's missing and why

Completely missing my point. It is not the missing the technologies that are the issue. The issue are "plans" that set timetables for deploying technologies that don't even exist. So a plan that says "here are the technology gaps and we need X billion in funding over 30 years" could be a reasonable plan. A plan that says "we can reduce our emissions by X% by 2050 if we invest X billion in R&D over 30 years" is nonsense.

[lukin]

Just tell me how eco-friendly you are, waldo. It's as simple as that. My bet is that you emit as many harmless ghg's as anyone else while preaching doomsday is near because of them.

Edited August 10, 2010 by lukin