Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Exactly. It's funny how they have no problem using a heat wave in the summer as proof of man made global warming, but if one cites record cold in the winter as the opposite, it's "localized weather". Complete and utter hypocrisy.

Do you believe global warming exists or don't you? Make up your mind. Talk about complete and utter hypocrisy. Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for the nay-sayers to cite what has been happening in the last 10 days or so as irrefutible proof against GW. You know that is gonna come.

When I put more power to the auxiliary engine and freezer the engine gets hotter and the freezer gets colder.

It's just so mysterious.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete and total BS. This is an excuse fabricated when first few spells of cold weather hit a few years ago and AGW ideologues needed a talking point. The other thing is: most skeptics talking about the cold know weather is weather - they are simply pointing it out to mock the hypocrisy of alarmists who drone on endlessly whenever a hot weather event occurs.

Ah.. no - cold weather only became and embarrassment for AGW hypesters a few years ago so they needed a talking point. That is when they invented this "AGW causes cold snaps" nonsense.

TimG, don't be afraid! Science is your friend... it won't/can't hurt you.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TimG, don't be afraid! Science is your friend... it won't/can't hurt you.

.

Yes and it beats the daylights out of religion as far as I'm concerned. Especially the one that Harper subscribes to, "Christian and Missionary Alliance" that believes that no matter how bad we screw up the planet, we don't need to worry as God will fix it, He being all powerful. "He" being God, not Harper, I guess.

YIKES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. Don't believe you. Provide a reference to the literature prior to 2005 that claims that AGW will cause more cold weather events.

say what! Even if one accepts your date... so what? Apparently, your conspiracy denier world also disallows/denies any new understandings/knowledge/research that contributes to scientific progress/advancement..... cause... if it's relatively new, and most particularly goes against the denier mantra, it's got to be "made up BS from ideological driven scientists"! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

say what! Even if one accepts your date... so what? Apparently, your conspiracy denier world also disallows/denies any new understandings/knowledge/research that contributes to scientific progress/advancement..... cause... if it's relatively new, and most particularly goes against the denier mantra, it's got to be "made up BS from ideological driven scientists"! :lol:

Yes I was wondering the same thing myself. I guess we just disregard all information post 2005? That could be up to 9 years worth. A lot of stuff. Next question I guess is, how much longer will we need to ignore any such new information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I was wondering the same thing myself. I guess we just disregard all information post 2005? That could be up to 9 years worth. A lot of stuff. Next question I guess is, how much longer will we need to ignore any such new information?

Climate science is a heavily politicized field. When an alarmist wants to make a claim someone writes up whatever crap they want and publishes it in a journal with editors who are also committed to the "cause". These claims may be subsequently debunked but that does not matter cause the alarmists got their political talking points.

I claimed that no prediction was made and that the claim that climate change leads to more cold weather was a idea made up after the previous cold spell. If you want to establish that it was actually a predication and not an after the fact rationalization then provide papers from before that period.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

say what! Even if one accepts your date... so what? Apparently, your conspiracy denier world also disallows/denies any new understandings/knowledge/research that contributes to scientific progress/advancement..... cause... if it's relatively new, and most particularly goes against the denier mantra, it's got to be "made up BS from ideological driven scientists"!

When an alarmist wants to make a claim someone writes up whatever crap they want and publishes it in a journal with editors who are also committed to the "cause". These claims may be subsequently debunked but that does not matter cause the alarmists got their political talking points.

I claimed that no prediction was made and that the claim that climate change leads to more cold weather was a idea made up after the previous cold spell. ...an after the fact rationalization.

ah yes, the conspiratorial TimG has not been front & center for a while! Heeee's Back!

yes, we're back to your dismissing attempts to advance scientific knowledge/understanding as "talking points for the cause". If, as you say, the "idea was made up for the cause", you should have no problem in refuting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah.. no - cold weather only became and embarrassment for AGW hypesters a few years ago so they needed a talking point. That is when they invented this "AGW causes cold snaps" nonsense.

Actually it causes our climate to get more energetic, that it gets colder or hotter as a result of that is besides the point.

But yeah some of the most fundamental laws of nature are just a scam, a pretext for the sake of a global conspiracy of greedy grant applicants or so the theory goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe global warming exists or don't you? Make up your mind. Talk about complete and utter hypocrisy.

Do I believe that the earth has warmed? From what period of time are you referring to? Does that's an it's 100% man caused warming? If not, what are the other reasons and how do you measure their impact? Regardless, does that mean one has to go along with economy killing prescriptions for said problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And many of those services depend on oil and resource extraction. I was trying to sort out the different sources of emissions and I found the data to be quite confusing because a large part of the EU emissions picture are 'land use changes' which offset real emissions - these are not real emissions but hypothetical emission reductions which makes them an accounting fiction. On top of that you have the ETS where emissions are offset by purchasing permits - permits which are often based on fraudulent carbon reduction schemes. It appears that some of the EU numbers include these offsets which are also accounting fictions.

Both of these factors make the headline numbers reported for the EU an accounting fiction. What I would like to see is a breakdown of actual emission data for EU vs. Canada. At this point I am not convinced the real difference (after removing the accounting fictions) are as large as they are claimed to be.

I across an interesting link that strongly supports my principle argument.

"A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020. What's more, such measures would result in $1.2 trillion in savings, far more than the $520 billion investment required to implement them. The corresponding reduction of greenhouse gas emissions would be like taking an entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles off the road."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I across an interesting link that strongly supports my principle argument.

This is double counting. All of the projections for future CO2 emissions assume a constant increase in efficiency. IOW - saying that energy efficiency will increase is like saying the sun set - more importantly, these improvements are already baked in the BAU emissions numbers. What we need to reduce emissions are methods over and above what would happen normally given a market economy.

I was also hoping you have better luck finding a break down of raw emission data that does not include credits and/or land use changes. It would be interesting to compare the raw data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is double counting. All of the projections for future CO2 emissions assume a constant increase in efficiency. IOW - saying that energy efficiency will increase is like saying the sun set - more importantly, these improvements are already baked in the BAU emissions numbers. What we need to reduce emissions are methods over and above what would happen normally given a market economy.

I was also hoping you have better luck finding a break down of raw emission data that does not include credits and/or land use changes. It would be interesting to compare the raw data.

no - without my personal regard for that study, the efficiency findings are over and above BAU..... and land use/credits are not, as you state, "included".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is double counting. All of the projections for future CO2 emissions assume a constant increase in efficiency. IOW - saying that energy efficiency will increase is like saying the sun set - more importantly, these improvements are already baked in the BAU emissions numbers. What we need to reduce emissions are methods over and above what would happen normally given a market economy.

No. Here is an expanded quote from my link:

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that, under existing policies, total energy consumption will grow by 14 percent by 2035. That doesn't have to be the case. A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020

IOW: BAU => +14%, versus widespread "common sense" conservation => -23%, for a net savings of 37%.

I was also hoping you have better luck finding a break down of raw emission data that does not include credits and/or land use changes. It would be interesting to compare the raw data.

I've had no luck so far... it would be interesting...

Edited by carepov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020

Then it is unlikely that these measures are technically feasible or cost effective. More likely they require mandatory lifestyle changes which will be politically impossible to impose.

If there was really no downside to the measures there would be no reason to impose them because saving money on energy is something the market encourages already.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it is unlikely that these measures are technically feasible or cost effective. More likely they require mandatory lifestyle changes which will be politically impossible to impose.

If there was really no downside to the measures there would be no reason to impose them because saving money on energy is something the market encourages already.

The measures discussed in the report were cost effective: "such measures would result in $1.2 trillion in savings, far more than the $520 billion investment required to implement them".

A good question that you often bring up is: if saving energy already saves money, why aren't we doing it already?

The report effectively answers that question starting on page 8. There are barriers to implementing conservation efforts and there are various solutions that remove these barriers - while benefiting the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report effectively answers that question starting on page 8. There are barriers to implementing conservation efforts and there are various solutions that remove these barriers - while benefiting the economy.

The report seems to acknowledge that it is cheaper for most people to pay more for energy now rather than to tie up capital in equipment to increase efficiency. This makes sense because people only have so much capital to spend and it is not enough for them to get a positive ROI on improving efficiency - they must get a higher ROI than they would get from other uses for the money.

The report seems to want suggest that government should take capital away from people and force them to invest it into energy efficiency instead of whatever gives them a better ROI. This will harm the economy more than it helps.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report seems to acknowledge that it is cheaper for most people to pay more for energy now rather than to tie up capital in equipment to increase efficiency. This makes sense because people only have so much capital to spend and it is not enough for them to get a positive ROI on improving efficiency - they must get a higher ROI than they would get from other uses for the money.

The report seems to want suggest that government should take capital away from people and force them to invest it into energy efficiency instead of whatever gives them a better ROI. This will harm the economy more than it helps.

It did not read like that to me at all: page 12: "various approaches could reduce financial hurdles..."

You are assuming that there is always a trade-off between an investment in conservation and a "better" investment. The reality is that sometimes:

-people and businesses are unaware of potential conservation investments

-there is a choice between conservation investment and no investment, where an extra incentive would increase economic activity and help the economy

Also, the report stresses the need for a holistic approach - information and education is always a part of the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,741
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    timwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • User earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...