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

This alarmist, from the 'denier nation', has the ultimate solution for climate change. And they wonder why they can't get anything done.

...3. The rich will have to be moved aside to solve the climate crisis. And by that I mean forcefully. They will never surrender, never meet us halfway. They will only delay us while they cash their next checks and sell more carbon.

http://americablog.com/2014/04/ipcc-accidentally-proves-international-cooperation-climate-change-dead.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you read a couple of sentences from a guy reviewing a book... and suddenly the book writer is your guy... cause, apparently, you like the suggestion that "effects will be quite easily managed"! Of course, you do. Let me put the same request/challenge to you - since you're suddenly so enamored with the guy, extend upon that book review and speak to the presumed rationale behind the suggestion of "easily managed effects". Notwithstanding, of course, your new found guy isn't an active scientist focused on AGW/CC. Take a shot, Simple.

you define what you presume are your new found guy's views Simple. And like I said, your past MLW history of outright denial is easily and quite readily available... that's my reference to your apparent contradiction in suggesting your new found guy is, as you declared him, an "intelligent, rational fellow"

Sure Waldo - go ahead and continue to shill for the Alarmist community with your bafflegab. All I'm saying is that Smil (via the book reviewer) makes a lot of sense in bringing multiple themes together in a pragmatic, realistic fashion......or in your world, are people not allowed to hold such views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Waldo - go ahead and continue to shill for the Alarmist community with your bafflegab. All I'm saying is that Smil (via the book reviewer) makes a lot of sense in bringing multiple themes together in a pragmatic, realistic fashion......or in your world, are people not allowed to hold such views?

you mean the couple of sentences the book reviewer used that pertain to climate change? Gee you were certainly swayed over a few words... weren't you? Yup, you read "manageable effects" and... bingo... he's your guy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This alarmist, from the 'denier nation', has the ultimate solution for climate change. And they wonder why they can't get anything done.

...3. The rich will have to be moved aside to solve the climate crisis. And by that I mean forcefully. They will never surrender, never meet us halfway. They will only delay us while they cash their next checks and sell more carbon.

http://americablog.com/2014/04/ipcc-accidentally-proves-international-cooperation-climate-change-dead.html

:lol: portfolio divestment!!! How radical... how forceful... how, uhhh... "alarmist". Don't worry, the Harvard Pres put to rest that radicalism. Harvard and your guy Ignatieff have no worries. Keep trying... bring more examples!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and moving forward, for some countries, presumes on negotiations that factor... that give consideration to... cumulative emissions and the degree of responsibility that various countries hold for current/future warming. Notwithstanding, again, emission outsourcing practices.

I wish you would speak coherently, not to mention what you wrote has grammatical errors.

Is this a reasonable translation?

"Some countries want negotiations to take past emissions & emission outsourcing practices into account."

I don't get this 'counter-argument'. Something should be done just because other countries want it to be done? Perhaps we should adopt Sharia cause Saudi Arabia and many other countries want us to. Perhaps we should ban Seth Rogen movies because North Korea wants us to.

What should be done is the best path based upon the evidence. What happened in the past is a SUNK COST. You cannot change the past, and trying to take that into account and penalize current generations for actions of past generations (especially when these past generations did not understand the consequences of CO2 emissions) does not make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Cut emisions by conserving energy and switching to nuclear.

This has to be the most annoying part of the debate. We are inundated with alarmists rhetoric about how the end of the world is coming yet the vast majority of alarmists refuse to consider the most reliable CO2 free power available. This suggests to me that most alarmists don't believe their own rhetoric and are merely using climate change as means to advance unrelated political objectives. Wake me up when Greenpeace and the WWF start pushing for nuclear. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you would speak coherently, not to mention what you wrote has grammatical errors.

Is this a reasonable translation?

"Some countries want negotiations to take past emissions & emission outsourcing practices into account."

:lol: my bad! Clearly I didn't have my most conversational 7800 word manifesto hat on! As for your wish... respectively, I wish you weren't so obsessively anal!

.

I don't get this 'counter-argument'. Something should be done just because other countries want it to be done? Perhaps we should adopt Sharia cause Saudi Arabia and many other countries want us to. Perhaps we should ban Seth Rogen movies because North Korea wants us to.

What should be done is the best path based upon the evidence. What happened in the past is a SUNK COST. You cannot change the past, and trying to take that into account and penalize current generations for actions of past generations (especially when these past generations did not understand the consequences of CO2 emissions) does not make sense.

what "SUNK COST" do you attach to those countries that share no responsibility in the past practices that caused the AGW/CC problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be the most annoying part of the debate. We are inundated with alarmists rhetoric about how the end of the world is coming yet the vast majority of alarmists refuse to consider the most reliable CO2 free power available. This suggests to me that most alarmists don't believe their own rhetoric and are merely using climate change as means to advance unrelated political objectives. Wake me up when Greenpeace and the WWF start pushing for nuclear.

of course, you (and your ilk) have labeled the following 4 prominent scientists, particularly James Hansen, the most alarming "alarmists" of all - imagine that! I've also highlighted Hansen advocating for 'safer nuclear' several times in past MLW posts... that didn't seem to stem the tide on his "alarmist labeling"! Of course, the following 4 guys advocate for next generation 'cleaner nuclear', because they have no belief that emissions can be stabilized in a required timeframe to avoid significant impact/damage/cost...

Open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems:

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.

Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.

While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump

With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.

We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question doesn't make sense. How does one 'attach' a sunk cost to a country?

the context was 'country-to-country' comparisons of the degree of responsibility for cumulative emissions production... the contextual extension of that was climate change reparations on a negotiated country level/category basis... see the UNFCCC 'Green Climate Fund' intended to support the transfer of monies from developed countries to developing countries... see the African Development Bank proposal for the creation of a Green Facility for Africa to receive and manage resources allocated to African countries from all sources, including long-term pledges made under the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund.

you can choose to play 'silly buggar' and claim to have introduced as aspect outside of the contextual discussion... you can do that... or you could stop being so freaking anal!

As for your wish... respectively, I wish you weren't so obsessively anal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course, you (and your ilk) have labeled the following 4 prominent scientists, particularly James Hansen, the most alarming "alarmists" of all - imagine that! I've also highlighted Hansen advocating for 'safer nuclear' several times in past MLW posts... that didn't seem to stem the tide on his "alarmist labeling"! Of course, the following 4 guys advocate for next generation 'cleaner nuclear', because they have no belief that emissions can be stabilized in a required timeframe to avoid significant impact/damage/cost...

Open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems:

Interesting letter - and good on these scientists for advocating nuclear - regardless of whether they might be considered "alarmist" with other positions. The fact that I haven't heard of it before demonstrates how rational thought gains little, ongoing traction in the media. What you've unwittingly done Waldo, is clearly demonstrate that there are powerful alarmist organizations who are not interested in solutions.....imagine - the price-tag on nuclear is too high to save us from Armageddon.

The letter is among the scientists' strongest public statements backing nuclear power. It also comes as CNN plans to air "Pandora's Promise," a documentary about environmentalists and longtime nuclear opponents who've done complete 180s on nukes.

By releasing the letter, the scientists are "putting their reputations on the line to do something that the ultra-greens regard as treason," said Stanford University Nobel-winning physicist Burton Richter.

Nuclear power is burgeoning in some parts of the world and shrinking in others. Asia is embracing it -- except Japan -- which is still struggling to figure out how to safely deal with the dangerously radioactive Fukushima nuclear power plant.

The Japanese disaster left Germany so unnerved that they've chosen to phase out their 17 nuclear facilities by 2022.

"We've got four top guns in the environmental movement telling [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel, 'You're wrong to shut down nuclear,'" said Richter. "I think that's a relatively big deal."

Are we witnessing the birth of a mutiny within the environmental movement? Will typical 21st-century environmentalists eventually embrace the power of the atom? A leading environmental group opposed to nuclear power says no.

"I don't think it's very significant that a few people have changed their minds about nuclear power," said Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Nuclear fuel may burn cleaner, the NRDC says, but comes with too many safety issues and too high of a price tag.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting letter - and good on these scientists for advocating nuclear - regardless of whether they might be considered "alarmist" with other positions. The fact that I haven't heard of it before demonstrates how rational thought gains little, ongoing traction in the media. What you've unwittingly done Waldo, is clearly demonstrate that there are powerful alarmist organizations who are not interested in solutions.....imagine - the price-tag on nuclear is too high to save us from Armageddon.

"unwittingly done"!!! Could your reading comprehension be any worse in what you came away with after reading that letter? Those 4 scientists aren't advocating for the status-quo nuclear... today's nuclear... today's unsafe nuclear! Read it again, hey... those 4 scientists have the same shared concerns as the "powerful alarmist organizations" you so readily choose to trash.... whatever the hell organizations you're choosing to broadly categorize.

but you're clearly on a reading comprehension difficulty roll Simple... your most recent posts in this thread have been a powerful testament to the difficulty you have in simply reading/interpreting. As for your 'never having heard of it'... the letter, I presume... ya, it didn't quite get the traction your denialspeak typically gains... but it did get some significant mainstream play. I did mention I've broached the subject of Hansen and his advocating for next gen (4th gen) nuclear, several times now in prior MLW threads/posts.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the context was 'country-to-country' comparisons of the degree of responsibility for cumulative emissions production... the contextual extension of that was climate change reparations on a negotiated country level/category basis... see the UNFCCC 'Green Climate Fund' intended to support the transfer of monies from developed countries to developing countries... see the African Development Bank proposal for the creation of a Green Facility for Africa to receive and manage resources allocated to African countries from all sources, including long-term pledges made under the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund.

You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again and are not answering the question. I get that there are many people that believe in mass wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries should occur due to climate change, but I'm asking you to justify the position.

you can choose to play 'silly buggar' and claim to have introduced as aspect outside of the contextual discussion... you can do that... or you could stop being so freaking anal!

Oh look, name calling. As expected, the climate alarmist has run out of arguments and has resorted to insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"unwittingly done"!!! Could your reading comprehension be any worse in what you came away with after reading that letter? Those 4 scientists aren't advocating for the status-quo nuclear... today's nuclear... today's unsafe nuclear! Read it again, hey... those 4 scientists have the same shared concerns as the "powerful alarmist organizations" you so readily choose to trash.... whatever the hell organizations you're choosing to broadly categorize.

Oh my Waldo! I think your reading comprehension is just fine and once again, you're on one of your deflecting, disingenous, blustery rants.

The authors are clearly referring to older nuclear plants that are in place today - most of which do not have the advantages of technology that is already available to be built into newer reactors:

We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.

Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my Waldo! I think your reading comprehension is just fine and once again, you're on one of your deflecting, disingenous, blustery rants.

The authors are clearly referring to older nuclear plants that are in place today - most of which do not have the advantages of technology that is already available to be built into newer reactors:

per norm, you don't know what you're talking about... but don't let you reading a few sentences stop you from becoming an expert! The technology associated with 4th gen nuclear is not there today... that's why the focus is on encouraging research/development in that regard. The closing summation from that letter:

"We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy."

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again and are not answering the question. I get that there are many people that believe in mass wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries should occur due to climate change, but I'm asking you to justify the position.

what's to "justify"? There are responsible parties and there are affected parties that had nothing to do with impacts they are now subject to, and will continue to be subject to.

Oh look, name calling. As expected, the climate alarmist has run out of arguments and has resorted to insults.

grow a pair! You weren't called a name... you weren't insulted. Your act was clearly described for what it was/is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"unwittingly done"!!! Could your reading comprehension be any worse in what you came away with after reading that letter? Those 4 scientists aren't advocating for the status-quo nuclear... today's nuclear... today's unsafe nuclear! Read it again, hey... those 4 scientists have the same shared concerns as the "powerful alarmist organizations" you so readily choose to trash.... whatever the hell organizations you're choosing to broadly categorize.

Safe and unsafe are relative terms. We know the risks of today's nuclear technology. There are about ~400 reactors operating for about ~30 years, and we have had 2 serious nuclear incidents in that time. That's an average of 1 incident per 6000 "reactor-years". Now, sure, that is some non-zero level of risk, and maybe we don't want to live next to a nuclear reactor or having it next to sensitive ecological areas. But that risk pales in comparison to some of the direr predictions of the results of global warming, does it not?

If one has two paths forward, one of greater risk and one of lesser risk, is it not better to take the one of lesser risk, even if that risk might not be as low as one might like? An "alarmist" that opposes nuclear due to the risks of nuclear energy is implying that the risks of climate change are less than the risks of nuclear energy. And we know that while nuclear energy has some risks, it certainly poses no great danger to human civilization or to human health outside of perhaps one incident every few decades that may affect a few thousand people.

To sum up, either climate change is dangerous enough that even current "unsafe" nuclear technology is a better option, or else the risks of climate change are low enough that we don't really care. You just can't have it both ways.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safe and unsafe are relative terms. We know the risks of today's nuclear technology. There are about ~400 reactors operating for about ~30 years, and we have had 2 serious nuclear incidents in that time. That's an average of 1 incident per 6000 "reactor-years". Now, sure, that is some non-zero level of risk, and maybe we don't want to live next to a nuclear reactor or having it next to sensitive ecological areas. But that risk pales in comparison to some of the direr predictions of the results of global warming, does it not?

If one has two paths forward, one of greater risk and one of lesser risk, is it not better to take the one of lesser risk, even if that risk might not be as low as one might like? An "alarmist" that opposes nuclear due to the risks of nuclear energy is implying that the risks of climate change are less than the risks of nuclear energy. And we know that while nuclear energy has some risks, it certainly poses no great danger to human civilization or to human health outside of perhaps one incident every few decades that may affect a few thousand people.

To sum up, either climate change is dangerous enough that even current "unsafe" nuclear technology is a better option, or else the risks of climate change are low enough that we don't really care. You just can't have it both ways.

You should have prefaced that with......Warning!! Rational thought unfolding! <_< But we all know that ol' Waldo is against everything.....and for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up, either climate change is dangerous enough that even current "unsafe" nuclear technology is a better option, or else the risks of climate change are low enough that we don't really care. You just can't have it both ways.

take your most convenient, self-serving, climate change/"alarmist" angle out of the discussion... it took 30 years before the ongoing construction of 2 new nuclear plants started in the U.S. (by the by, an Obama initiative is responsible for those 2 new plants)... there are currently 28 nuclear plants under construction in China - yes, 28 (for all those MLW China bashers out there). Did "activist" opposition to nuclear (from whatever sources) have any real sway in preventing the build/deployment of new nuclear plants in the last 3 decades? That seems doubtful if you look at the U.S. situation - from what I read, in the mid-to-late 2000's, a consortium of companies had designs on building up to 25 new nuclear plants... that's now down to the 2 currently under construction and 3 more "planned" to come on-line by 2020, with a multitude of factors involved in the reduction: less electrical demand, abundant natural gas, the cost of gas versus nuclear plants (5:1 difference favouring gas), the time to build gas versus nuclear (2:5-to-10 years difference favouring gas), the availability of financing... and safety concerns... and "suspected" lobbying by 'BigCoal'.

perhaps before you want to tag your convenient target's position, and whatever degree that position holds/sways concerning nuclear, I suggest you come forward with actual substantiation to suggest your convenient target has had any influence in the development of nuclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have prefaced that with......Warning!! Rational thought unfolding! <_< But we all know that ol' Waldo is against everything.....and for nothing.

Simple, you need to get over the fact I keep making you look the prat... your responses are only helping to reinforce that! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're on the wrong side of a massive body of evidence and believe that thousands are in on a secret plot, you just might be a conspiracy theorist.

Perfect.

I think what's important to note too is that scientists welcome disagreement too. They want better information, better explanations for the evidence that has been observed. It's not that TimG and those who agree with him are disagreeing with the scientists, it's that they're ignoring clear conclusions from the observations and evidence.

This is why you will see them change their position on occasion to say, "I agree with the data; I just don't think we should do anything about climate change." They've gone from the climate change denial narrative to the economic alarmist narrative. We can't and shouldn't do anything to fund alternative fuels or control emissions because it would be economically disastrous. These argument too are bunk. Since the economic destruction that would result from ignoring climate change is completely ignored by the economic alarmist narrative.

You can't change these people's minds with facts when the cognitive biases are so strong. You have to lead them with questions that force them to figure it out for themselves and draw their own conclusions. But when you do that, as I have done in certain discussions about immigration, the cognitive dissonance sometimes leads to meltdowns and personal insults. It's amusing really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up, either climate change is dangerous enough that even current "unsafe" nuclear technology is a better option, or else the risks of climate change are low enough that we don't really care. You just can't have it both ways.

The risks as I see it, aren't as much technological as they are us, especially if we bring the same sets of ethics and morals that have driven our production of energy using hydro-carbons to our production of nuclear energy.

What for example, will prevent us from continuing to dump the environmental costs of energy production into our ecosystems they way we always have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be the most annoying part of the debate. We are inundated with alarmists rhetoric about how the end of the world is coming yet the vast majority of alarmists refuse to consider the most reliable CO2 free power available. This suggests to me that most alarmists don't believe their own rhetoric and are merely using climate change as means to advance unrelated political objectives. Wake me up when Greenpeace and the WWF start pushing for nuclear.

What the alarmists are looking to do is throttle growth in the West, not to limit emissions.. They pointedly omit the fact that China and India are outside of the discussion. As you point out nuclear is off the table. These people are anti-growth and anti-West.

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
      10,533
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    papoket
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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