SpankyMcFarland Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 Go argue with the scientists, guys. There's no point scoring points against random loons like myself about 50 year averages of sea levels in Vancouver. The debate has moved on to protecting ourselves from the damage we have already caused and trying to minimize further problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 The debate should, I think, start encompassing how to protect ourselves from the ability of such a small number of vested interests to hold so much sway over decision makers in the face of so much persistent scientific consensus on the need for action. The debate should be about how we govern ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 Tim, just to be clear; you do understand that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases inhibit re-radiation of energy. You can test this in any undergraduate physics lab. The results are predictable and measurable. Therefore, the only question still up for debate is how the impact will manifest its self in a highly complex system. You don't have to wait for the sea level to rise in Vancouver. We need to be worried about the snow pack in Whistler, Red Mountain and Kimberley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Therefore, the only question still up for debate is how the impact will manifest its self in a highly complex system.Of course, but the more important question is: if we assume that CO2 is a potential problem then what can be done about it? When you consider costs and plausibility the only real answer is adapt. Mitigation policies will fail and, more importantly, will waste a lot of money and public good will while they are failing. Edited January 3, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 What public good will? That ship has pretty much burned to the waterline meaning adaptation is going to be strictly about might making right and anything that remotely resembles public investments in adapting will be resisted as fiercely as any other proactive policy related to AGW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Some people used to say if man was supposed to fly God would have given him wings, and those folks still seem to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Some people used to say if man was supposed to fly God would have given him wings, and those folks still seem to exist.And when people say such things 99.9% of the time they are right. Proving the conventional wisdom wrong happens but it happens rarely. If one has to make a bet the most rational thing to do is bet on the conventional wisdom - perhaps with small side bets just in case this turns out to be one of the rare cases where the conventional wisdom is wrong. Edited January 4, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 And when people say such things 99.9% of the time they are right. Proving the conventional wisdom wrong happens but it happens rarely. If one has to make a bet the most rational thing to do is bet on the conventional wisdom - perhaps with small side bets just in case this turns out to be one of the rare cases where the conventional wisdom is wrong. Which conventional "wisdom" are you betting on I wonder, probably the God one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Which conventional "wisdom" are you betting on I wonder, probably the God one?The conventional wisdom that non-CO2 emitting energy sources are not remotely viable at this time and no tax or policy is going to make them viable. This means that all attempts to reduce CO2 emissions will fail and policies that attempt to make the impossible happen are a waste of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 The conventional wisdom that non-CO2 emitting energy sources are not remotely viable at this time and no tax or policy is going to make them viable. This means that all attempts to reduce CO2 emissions will fail and policies that attempt to make the impossible happen are a waste of money. Nuclear energy is quite viable and western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of nuclear fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 The conventional wisdom that non-CO2 emitting energy sources are not remotely viable at this time and no tax or policy is going to make them viable. This means that all attempts to reduce CO2 emissions will fail and policies that attempt to make the impossible happen are a waste of money. Same old head in the sand attitude that has been gotten past numerous times in the past. Don't worry, we will again in spite of your denials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Nuclear energy is quite viable and western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of nuclear fuel.Nuclear is not a viable option because too many people are scared of it. More importantly, even if we started building reactors as fast as possible we could not possibly build enough to significantly impact global emissions within the IPCC timeframes nor do nuclear reactors help with the car problem. Edited January 4, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 When people understand the full ramifacations of what is going to happen if we don't stop burning fossil fuels, they will embrace nuclear power with open arms. Our folly has been to allow people to leave school without a proper grounding in mathmatics, chemistry, physics and biology. Sociology, psychology, and political "science" are nice entertainmets, but are not the foundations of an educated citizen. I agree that overcoming, what can only be described as superstition (ie. the irrational fear of nuclear energy), is the greatest hurdle. Sea level rise is only the beginning. If you think the temperature rise is going to level out after a dozen degrees, you are misinformed. Sea levels will begin to drop and liquid water will cease to exist when the mean temperature approaches 100 degrees C. It makes a nuclear melt down seem pretty minor. What problem with cars. With nuclear reactors producing enough power, we can electrify the rail and transit systems and cars will go the way of the buggy whip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Our folly has been to allow people to leave school without a proper grounding in mathmatics, chemistry, physics and biology. Sociology, psychology, and political "science" are nice entertainmets, but are not the foundations of an educated citizen. I agree that overcoming, what can only be described as superstition (ie. the irrational fear of nuclear energy), is the greatest hurdle. Actually I'm betting the biggest hurdle is that most people simply don't trust governments to properly regulate nuclear plant operators. Virtually every nuclear plant accident or disaster can be traced back to or involved lousy oversight. Our folly is to keep operating governments without proper oversight. Is it really that surprising that so many people are so mistrusting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Eyeball wrote, "Virtually every nuclear plant accident or disaster can be traced back to or involved lousy oversight." I'm betting more people have died in car accidents in Saskatchewan than have died world wide in nuclear accidents. If we had better education, we would have better oversight of governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 If we had better education, we would have better oversight of governments.Absolutely. First things first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Sea level rise is only the beginning. If you think the temperature rise is going to level out after a dozen degrees, you are misinformed. Sea levels will begin to drop and liquid water will cease to exist when the mean temperature approaches 100 degrees C. It makes a nuclear melt down seem pretty minor.I find it ironic that the you bemoan the lack of scientific illiteracy of others but then you make statements that make your own scientific illiteracy painfully obvious. If you read the IPCC reports and look at the underlying science we can expect no more than 1m of sea level rise over the next 100 years. The temperature rise will be maybe 2-3 degrees (at most - likely less). These kinds of gross exagerrations are why people are afraid of nuclear. It makes no sense for you to think that you can address people's fear of nuclear with more of the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 If we had better education, we would have better oversight of governments. It's pretty difficult to oversee government when it operates at the scale that it does today. A better idea would be for there to be pilot projects that attach public groups to areas of government activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I find it ironic that the you bemoan the lack of scientific illiteracy of others but then you make statements that make your own scientific illiteracy painfully obvious. If you read the IPCC reports and look at the underlying science we can expect no more than 1m of sea level rise over the next 100 years. The temperature rise will be maybe 2-3 degrees (at most - likely less). These kinds of gross exagerrations are why people are afraid of nuclear. It makes no sense for you to think that you can address people's fear of nuclear with more of the same. A century is nothing. We have to look at the long term. Once we hit the tipping point, the system becomes a self-generating engine in acceleration mode. In the short term, we are going to lose the snow packs in Kimberley and Rossland. That will be in my lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 A century is nothing. We have to look at the long term. Once we hit the tipping point, the system becomes a self-generating engine in acceleration mode.The "tipping point" hypothesis is extremely implausible given the history of earth. If the earth did not have some built-in mechanism to stabilize the climate it would have turned into Venus or Mars eons ago. In the short term, we are going to lose the snow packs in Kimberley and Rossland. That will be in my lifetime.So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I find it ironic that the you bemoan the lack of scientific illiteracy of others but then you make statements that make your own scientific illiteracy painfully obvious. If you read the IPCC reports and look at the underlying science we can expect no more than 1m of sea level rise over the next 100 years. The temperature rise will be maybe 2-3 degrees (at most - likely less). These kinds of gross exagerrations are why people are afraid of nuclear. It makes no sense for you to think that you can address people's fear of nuclear with more of the same. Not sure what reports you are reading but between NOAA and NASA we could get mote than a meter of rise from the Thwaites alone. That doesn't count Greenland or thermal expansion. Then there is the possibility that Thwaites is a "pin" that when gone will allow the rest of western Antarctic sheets to slide, then we are into multiple meters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I am also concerned about the impact the over consumption of oil will have on future generations. Our technological civilization depends upon oil, coal and iron ore. We are using them up at an alarming rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 To hell with future generations. I'm following the mantra of the head troll on here "drill baby drill". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Fear not. Future generations won't be using oil, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Fear not. Future generations won't be using oil, etc. Certainly not for producing energy but there is so much more that can be done with oil...petrochemicals etc. 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.