TimG Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) If you opt to do nothing, there may be more money to be paid later, and you will have to pay.Maybe. But history tells me that humans will adapt and we won't really notice the cost because it will be part of the infrastructure spending that we always have to make anyways.We will obviously agree to disagree but don't insult me by claiming that I am "denying the science". I know what the science says (likely better than most on this board) but I am not convinced the risk is large enough to worry. Edited September 21, 2012 by TimG Quote
wyly Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Nuclear power is incredibly safe. Even in Japan where four nuclear power plants were by the tsunami only one had problems. Even though the Fukushima incident was bad it was still at less that what the catastrophists were claiming. timg the artful dodger chyernobol ya lets not talk about that, lets' not talk about the prediction of hurricane catastrophe for New Orleans, earthquake/tsunami catastrophe warnings for the Ring of Fire(indonesia, japan, N america)naa that's all astrology it'll never happen those socialist scaremongering scientists are just after government funded research jobs Edited September 21, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 Last time I checked natural gas prices are a record lows. We are swimming in it. The glut of natural gas has led to a huge reduction in US CO2 production yet that had nothing to do with the hair brained anti-CO2 policies. Actually reduced emissions IS one of the reasons more gas plants have been built in the last few years. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 Actually reduced emissions IS one of the reasons more gas plants have been built in the last few yearsNope. Cheap gas. That is the primary factor. You want to reduce emissions you need to find non-emitting power sources that are cheaper than the emitting sources and industry will switch with no regulation. Natural gas is cheaper which is why it has made a difference where solar/wind/biofuels fail. Quote
wyly Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 I agree. I think we can build safe nuclear plants, and we should. But its not any kind of silver bullet. If you look at the completely cycle from initial conception of a plant to its eventual decommisioning its insanely expensive, and the cost of new plants is rising very quickly. And since private investors have little interest in putting up the capital required to build them, and western governments are flat broke theres only so far we can go. he dodging/deflecting don't fall for it...he just finished proclaiming that catastrophes can never happen and have never happened that predictions that those events could happen were groundless based on no more than astrology not TimG's scientific principles...now he's backpedaling, ignoring the other events and qualifying Fukishima's meltdown as a minor "problem" , ya 80K people can't return home for 30yrs is not as bad as predicted hey Chernobyl wasn't as bad as predicted not many people died, that 53,000 people can never return home EVER! is not as bad as predicted Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 he just finished proclaiming that catastrophes can never happenA strawman. You are the one claiming that Fukushima was a catastrophe. I never claimed it was. I really don't care what you want to define as a catastrophe. When I talk about catastrophe i am referring to the endless 'the end is nigh' claims that have appeared over and over. No matter how times environmentalists claim the world is ending it never plays out the way they claim. Quote
dre Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 A strawman. You are the one claiming that Fukushima was a catastrophe. I never claimed it was. I really don't care what you want to define as a catastrophe. When I talk about catastrophe i am referring to the endless 'the end is nigh' claims that have appeared over and over. No matter how times environmentalists claim the world is ending it never plays out the way they claim. Youre answering with a strawman of your own. Not everyone who things environmental concerns should be one of the things contemplated by policy makers claims the world is going to end. You are basically just talking about your COUNTERPARTS on the other side of the issue, that are as obsessed and biased as you are. But most people are not in their ideologically obsessed fringe camp OR yours. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 Not everyone who things environmental concerns should be one of the things contemplated by policy makers claims the world is going to end.Yet Michael claimed global warming could be catastrophic. He never struck me as an extremist. I used to more moderate in my views - until I discovered the rampant corruption in the scientific establishment. Since the scientific establishment has shown no interest in standing up for good science I take the position that I will oppose any and all actions no matter how reasonable until the scientific establishment cleans up its act. Like most boycotts it will likely change nothing but I am a least doing what I can. Quote
waldo Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 I used to more moderate in my views - until I discovered the rampant corruption in the scientific establishment. Since the scientific establishment has shown no interest in standing up for good science I take the position that I will oppose any and all actions no matter how reasonable until the scientific establishment cleans up its act. Like most boycotts it will likely change nothing but I am a least doing what I can. there is no rampant corruption in the scientific establishment. As has been pointed out to you, several times over, even if one accepted every one of your imagined, wild-assed charges of corruption that you regularly assert, your targeted denier campaign involves a most select, isolated and smallish complement of scientists... the smallest of small subsets out of tens of thousands of active world-wide scientists. How special of you to tag the entire scientific establishment with your broad and sweeping charges. talk about your delusions of grandeur! You have the gall to state you're, "going to oppose all actions... no matter how reasonable... until the scientific establishment cleans up its act"! You are a good little soldier, aren't you? Quote
wyly Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Youre answering with a strawman of your own. Not everyone who things environmental concerns should be one of the things contemplated by policy makers claims the world is going to end. You are basically just talking about your COUNTERPARTS on the other side of the issue, that are as obsessed and biased as you are. But most people are not in their ideologically obsessed fringe camp OR yours. timg hasn't offered any evidence, it's all empty rhetoric vague accusations of astrology but zero substance...zero substance because he's got nothing..picking and choosing what a catastrophe to suit his arguement..."No matter how times environmentalists claim the world is ending it never plays out the way they claim."...ya when did that happen? predictions of fisheries collapse yup that's happening...ocean reefs dying, yup that's happening...disappearance of arctic sea ice, yup ahead of schedule... world ending? you wanna go into detail there tim? when exactly was that predicted, by whom and when was it supposed to happen?...citations please.... "until I discovered the rampant corruption in the scientific establishment." tim scientific genius now super sleuth too...really you lost all credibility when you tossed in the astrology analogy... Edited September 21, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 talk about your delusions of grandeur! You have the gall to state you're, "going to oppose all actions... no matter how reasonable... until the scientific establishment cleans up its act"! You are a good little soldier, aren't you? well I guess that's it then, we might as well give up the debate tim is opposed... are you going phone al gore and break the bad news to him or should I? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Keepitsimple Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 there is no rampant corruption in the scientific establishment. As has been pointed out to you, several times over, even if one accepted every one of your imagined, wild-assed charges of corruption that you regularly assert, your targeted denier campaign involves a most select, isolated and smallish complement of scientists... the smallest of small subsets out of tens of thousands of active world-wide scientists. How special of you to tag the entire scientific establishment with your broad and sweeping charges. talk about your delusions of grandeur! You have the gall to state you're, "going to oppose all actions... no matter how reasonable... until the scientific establishment cleans up its act"! You are a good little soldier, aren't you? Geez, I took you off IGNORE for 24 hours and I just HAVE to put you back on - just can't STAND listening to that condescending, narcissistic blabbering.......did you get beat up a lot in high school? Quote Back to Basics
eyeball Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) "No matter how times environmentalists claim the world is ending it never plays out the way they claim."...ya when did that happen? predictions of fisheries collapse yup that's happening...ocean reefs dying, yup that's happening...disappearance of arctic sea ice, yup ahead of schedule... ...that the usual suspects, big corporations and big governments, would have to be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way towards taking action...catastrophically underestimated. Friends of the Earth really need to start taking serious action on this particular front. Edited September 22, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
TimG Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) world ending? you wanna go into detail there tim? when exactly was that predicted, by whom and when was it supposed to happen?.Here is a sampling: "[by] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots[by 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970 The endless drum beat of doom does not always provide specific dates that can be shown to be laughably wrong. But the pattern is clear: catastrophe is predicted if we don't 'mend our ways'. Nothing changes or (more often) the normal evolution of society brings changes that render the concern irrelevant. Edited September 22, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 there is no room/allowance for debate that the principal causal tie to global warming is anthropogenic... don't hesitate to make an interpreted substantiated case for an alternate principal causal tie, one other than the anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning. So you've finally made a clear, unequivocal stand. No room for debate - no allowance for any debate. The principle cause of Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's settled - case closed. No allowance for any debate....that's an unsettling comment. so... you did get flushed out, after all. Nothing to say about the discussion over your ongoing regurgitation of the same tired denier talking points that have been previously refuted, several times over? in any case, what's this "finally made a clear, unequivocal stand" nonsense you're puffed up over? You're not reading anything new... from me. If you actually had your fake skeptic self tuned to the actual debate you wouldn't be, with this your latest post, reinforcing your... fake skeptic self. Yes, given known understandings and the prevailing science of the day - the principal causal tie to global warming is anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning. That is no longer debated by real scientists or legitimate skeptics. Clearly, as I've also stated many times over, the only real debate lies in terms of climate sensitivity and related responses toward mitigation/adaptation/prevention of associated climate change... this is nothing new to you... you know this, you've been engaged in past MLW exchanges concerning climate sensitivity. Geez, I took you off IGNORE for 24 hours and I just HAVE to put you back on - just can't STAND listening to that condescending, narcissistic blabbering.......did you get beat up a lot in high school? is that all ya got, Simple? Quote
waldo Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 Here is a sampling:The endless drum beat of doom does not always provide specific dates that can be shown to be laughably wrong. But the pattern is clear: catastrophe is predicted if we don't 'mend our ways'. Nothing changes or (more often) the normal evolution of society brings changes that render the concern irrelevant. geezaz! If you wanted failed predictions... you didn't need a gutter reach to a 'Maxim Lott, FoxNews' spew... of course, we could have some real fun with several of that guys failed writings, hey? But let's work with what you parroted from FoxNews... I was curious and checked out a few... and a few more - they were just too good to not offer up a reply: standard schlock FoxNews writing; spinning these most selective 8 'predictions' as somehow being representative of the scientific consensus on climate change. Of course, the article's overriding pictorial includes more schlock (Hollywood schlock, in the form of the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow"... nothing like setting the tone, and "legitimacy" of the article to come, hey!) #1. by the by, any particular reason you purposely left out this one from your quote extract; this one, the very first of the eight 'predictions'... is it because the 'prediction' came from the only working climate scientist in the grouping... and the prediction, overall, is reasonably positioned? #2. from Michael Oppenheimer, a most critically acclaimed scientist. At least the FoxNews guy quotes Oppenheimer's own commentary on his 'prediction'... of being not truly a prediction as much as one of a grouping of portrayed emission reduction scenarios - that he generally stands by the prediction in terms of past/current extensive, devastating global drought conditions. #3. from Bernt Balchan... described as an "Arctic specialist"!... in fact, was not a scientist; rather, his association with the Arctic was as a "polar aviator". Well done FoxNews! (in any case, his prediction of an ice free Arctic ocean is lining up to be, ultimately, spot on... with more current predictions suggesting ice free within the next decade... others predicting into 2030-2050). I recently posted the NSIDC formal announcement of the 2012 record for the lowest extent level of Arctic sea ice... also showcasing the ever decreasing trendline from the early 70s. #4. from a private industry organization, AER: a... supposed... 89 prediction suggesting a modeled U.S. temperature rise of 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2010. Only reference is to an Associated Press article (not linked), with FoxNews advising AER was not available for comment by the "pressing FoxNews deadline"! => In terms of a representative global temperature rise prediction, one that can be sourced: "Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." --- IPCC AR4 SPM - Projections of Future Changes in Climate #5. from... "1970 Life Magazine"; the specific "prediction" as, "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half" --- with an actual supplied link to the 1970 Life Magazine article, where the single line "prediction" can be found... with no accompanying detail and lacking any reference to the actual origin of the "prediction". => in spite of all this FoxNews (lack of) attention to detail, what is absolute and relevant is that the 70s ushered in the most stringent pollution controlling regulation measures to cut vehicle and industry pollution, dramatically improving ambient air quality... significantly reducing levels of carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, ozone, and volatile organic compounds. Hey FoxNews... is there a reason this supposed 1970 Life Magazine prediction didn't realize? #6. from Kenneth E.F. Watt, a zoologist (now professor emeritus)... a 1970s global cooling prediction - hey now, is this the single guy we can finally pin the 70s global cooling meme to? But hey now, if this FoxNews schlock intends to denigrate climate science/scientists, is it really fair game to include a known denier, a guy Inhofe regularly touts as one of his listed denier scientists, a guy listed as a contributing expert to the denying Idso clan? Is that really fair FoxNews? #7 & #8. 1970s from the same Paul R. Ehrlich, biologist... apparently the pressing FoxNews deadline must have caused a doubling up from the same source: Ehrlich is quoted attempting to rationalize his predictions in terms of today's population impact (#7), and sea species status overall... well done FoxNews!... well done TimG! Quote
Shady Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 Like I've already said, whether global warming is real or not is a moot point. Until our technology catches up to solve the problem, there isn't really anything significant that can be done. Especially not until countries like China and India come on board. Quote
waldo Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 Like I've already said, whether global warming is real or not is a moot point. Until our technology catches up to solve the problem, there isn't really anything significant that can be done. Especially not until countries like China and India come on board. ya, I read your same earlier profound... and authoritative assessment! Apparently, you hold to that numbing mindset that presumes nothing can be done - nothing! Why your profound summation can't fathom the concept of such radical mitigation approaches that align to... short, medium and long-term strategies. How radical! That you would, apparently, apply your 'do nothing' brush across all sectors, be they energy, transport, agriculture, industry, forests, waste management, buildings, etc.. That nothing reinforces your 'do nothing' position, like doing nothing today to contribute toward developing/resolving known longer-term technology gaps. Since you have now repeatedly emphasized that ready go-to, 'technology gaps', perhaps it would be helpful for you to actually step-up and identify what you deem as, 'technology gaps'... don't forget to add your insight into classifying said 'technology gaps' as short, medium or long-term. while China has always been your favoured bugaboo, it would be helpful to appreciate how/why you always seem to give the U.S. a pass when applying your targeted country criticism - what measures has the U.S. taken (to deployment, to enforcement) that so allows you to continually avoid its inclusion in your targeted critical eye. can 'we' ever get beyond the seemingly hollow pledges toward emission reductions... are we still a long, long way from realizing those binding emission reduction agreements? When both the U.S. and China make these pledges, without binding conditions, are they simply food for your 'do nothing' crowd, Shady? Were you encouraged by the latest Durban COP, Shady? On China's 'seeming' new openness to considerations of entering into a binding agreement, conditional as it was? Quote
jbg Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 So true. I can even agree that we should be minimizing the amount of cr*p we throw into the atmosphere. There are far better reasons for avoiding pollution than climate change. Bad arguments drive out good arguments. I fear, for the sake of environmentalism, that climate change is a very weak reed to lean on. While this substantive post goes unresponded to, see dribble below: Another hollow refutation. You've just had your ass kicked again with this total refutation. please Pliny, please... bring your Mr. Wizard hollow argument self out! That doesn't mean that imaginary "projections" aren't "imaginary hobgoblins" such as presented in Al Gore's film gosh what was it called again? How soon we forget. An Inconsequential Truth or something like that. You remember that one. Didn't contain much truth... Whoa....another total refutation, dude. Al Gore, Pliny? did you work hard on that... really, really hard? No wonder so many good posters have left. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) Far better than a consensus that it increases global temperatures and could have catastrophic effects ? Right, but "could" doesn't mean "possibly" in this sense. It means a significant chance. Even if it's in the single digits, it needs to be looked at. The ones who will pay the most if the risk comes to pass - they have no voice in the debate. As such, you're acknowledging that the richest nations will have to pay more if these risks are realized. But what if, as is likely, the risk from rising temperatures is real, but it emanates from natural forces such as Pacific ocean cycles, underwater volcanic activity or simply the end of an Ice Age? We would shut down large parts of the economy for nothing. At least King Canute's activities were a waste of time only for him. Edited September 23, 2012 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
BubberMiley Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 But what if, as is likely, the risk from rising temperatures is real, but it emanates from natural forces such as Pacific ocean cycles, underwater volcanic activity or simply the end of an Ice Age? Perhaps it's the heat generated from muslim riots. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bleeding heart Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 You are entitled to give your money to whatever cause you believe in. Just don't try to force me to join you. Hence your continual complaints about the extremely expensive military adventurism of the past couple decades....oh, wait.... Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
jbg Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 Perhaps it's the heat generated from muslim riots. I guess you can't address my point. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
BubberMiley Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 I guess you can't address my point. I would if you had one. What if spewing untold amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere had no effect? Indeed, what if? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
jbg Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 I would if you had one. What if spewing untold amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere had no effect? Indeed, what if? My point is that the spewing of any gases, not only GHG's are a matter of concern. We should be trimming all of it, emphasizing first the most harmful. We should also reduce in inverse proportion to effect on economy. A single-minded focus on GHG's is senseless. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
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.