AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[On Guard for Thee]

The verdict is far from concluded on electric cars. For starters it depends where you are and how you produce the "juice"

[jbg]

The verdict is far from concluded on electric cars. For starters it depends where you are and how you produce the "juice"

These days, in most cases,the "juice" is produced by some technology that causes environmental damage of its own:

1. Wind - physically ugly, noisy, not great for birds, and turbines can freeze. Also not great when wind dies down;
2. Solar - Not great in cloudy weather, or high latitudes during months surrounding solstice;
3. Oil - Ask any AGW alarmist, also imported from people we shouldn't be doing business with, enviros want to cripple domestic production;
4. Fracked gas - better but alarmists still want problem to solve;
5. Coal - dirty, and ask any AGW alarmist;
6. Hydro - Some bozos wanted to dam the Grand Canyon

In short there are problems with everything.that involves energy. Nothing is perfect. Conservation? Great way to let China and India take our jobs.

[On Guard for Thee]

These days, in most cases,the "juice" is produced by some technology that causes environmental damage of its own:

1. Wind - physically ugly, noisy, not great for birds, and turbines can freeze. Also not great when wind dies down;
2. Solar - Not great in cloudy weather, or high latitudes during months surrounding solstice;
3. Oil - Ask any AGW alarmist, also imported from people we shouldn't be doing business with, enviros want to cripple domestic production;
4. Fracked gas - better but alarmists still want problem to solve;
5. Coal - dirty, and ask any AGW alarmist;
6. Hydro - Some bozos wanted to dam the Grand Canyon

In short there are problems with everything.that involves energy. Nothing is perfect. Conservation? Great way to let China and India take our jobs.

1. Don't know how wind adds to global warming. Might whack a few birds but that problem is being addressed

2. Obviously you put your solar panels where there's sun. Cal. for instance doing great things.

3. Oil. Ask any AGW scientist. Nuff said.

4. Fracked gas better. Why the dumb comment about wanting problems?

5. Coal. Ask any AGW scientist.

6. Some bozos would prefer coal to hydro?

[jbg]

1. Don't know how wind adds to global warming. Might whack a few birds but that problem is being addressed

2. Obviously you put your solar panels where there's sun. Cal. for instance doing great things.

3. Oil. Ask any AGW scientist. Nuff said.

4. Fracked gas better. Why the dumb comment about wanting problems?

5. Coal. Ask any AGW scientist.

6. Some bozos would prefer coal to hydro?

1. Some turbines in great wind places such as New Brunswick froze. See this thread (link) about frozen turbines. Also see (link): "Tears welled up in Larry Lorusso's eyes and his voice began to crack as he spoke about the environmental impacts the Hoosac wind project has had since it first went online last year. "
2. And how much environmental damage in cabling that energy to Ontario or New York?
3. You didn't refute the objection to oil nor did you try to.
4. Lots of resistance to gas fracking from the usual suspects and bleaters;
5. You didn't refute the objection to coal nor did you try to.
6. My point, which you didn't refute, is that hydro does lots of damage to ecosystems.

[Wilber]

Creating electricity for cars that don't use fossil fuels uses more such fuels or otherwise causes more environmental degradation than just using the fuels.

The idea is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. More efficient cars do that, they don't have to be all electric and they don't have to be zero emission. In areas were electricity is primarily produced by hydro electric or nuclear power, the reduction in CO2 and other emissions would be substantial.

I don't get this all or nothing approach from either side of the argument. The idea that we may not be able to stop warming entirely so there is no point in doing anything is just plain stupid. Jeeze Louise, at least try and slow it down some while our ability to cope can catch up.

Some interesting pics. Should be self explanatory in any language.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/galeries-photos/photo/20140827.OBS7277/grand-format-secheresse-aux-usa-18-alarmantes-photos-avant-apres.html

Edited September 28, 2014 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

The idea is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. More efficient cars do that, they don't have to be all electric and they don't have to be zero emission.

But this was already happening because of market forces and technology, not because of global warming climate change. Economics drives such things...not hugging trees.

[Wilber]

But this was already happening because of market forces and technology, not because of global warming climate change. Economics drives such things...not hugging trees.

So increasing fuel taxes would be a good idea then.

[eyeball]

How else do we make a serious dent in so-called "greenhouse gases"?

Start by taking it seriously.

[Wilber]

But this was already happening because of market forces and technology, not because of global warming climate change. Economics drives such things...not hugging trees.

You think climate change has no influence on market forces and technology?

BTW, trees are the lungs of this planet, giving them the occasional hug might not be a bad idea.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

You think climate change has no influence on market forces and technology?

No for auto emissions and fuel efficiency...existed long before the current climate change fad.

BTW, trees are the lungs of this planet, giving them the occasional hug might not be a bad idea.

Right...but trees come and go on a regular basis due to natural influences. They are also not the only "lungs for the planet".

[Wilber]

No for auto emissions and fuel efficiency...existed long before the current climate change fad.

Auto emissions standards came in because cities were choking on their own crap and have taken 40 years to get to their present level, not because of market forces. Pickup trucks are still the biggest sellers.

Right...but trees come and go on a regular basis due to natural influences. They are also not the only "lungs for the planet".

The major reason they go is due to human influences. Forests may not be the only lungs but they are the biggest and we would be royally screwed without them.

[On Guard for Thee]

No for auto emissions and fuel efficiency...existed long before the current climate change fad.

Right...but trees come and go on a regular basis due to natural influences. They are also not the only "lungs for the planet".

I guess you've also heard that people come and go too. Perhaps by your reasoning we should therefore discount their importance as well. Or is that why deniers are deniers. They don't care for people too much?

[bush_cheney2004]

Auto emissions standards came in because cities were choking on their own crap and have taken 40 years to get to their present level, not because of market forces. Pickup trucks are still the biggest sellers.

The enabling technologies for smog control and engine/fuel management systems were developed because of military & market forces. The government simply mandated adoption thereof. Smog still exists.

The major reason they go is due to human influences. Forests may not be the only lungs but they are the biggest and we would be royally screwed without them.

Only on a very short time horizon....the earth's forests have seen far more change before mankind ever existed.

[On Guard for Thee]

The enabling technologies for smog control and engine/fuel management systems were developed because of military & market forces. The government simply mandated adoption thereof. Smog still exists.

Only on a very short time horizon....the earth's forests have seen far more change before mankind ever existed.

Yeah the forests moved around, but they always existed. Without them it really would be a short time horizon.

[Wilber]

The enabling technologies for smog control and engine/fuel management systems were developed because of military & market forces. The government simply mandated adoption thereof. Smog still exists.

This a bit of revisionist history? Emission controls came in because Los Angeles was gagging on its own air so they were imposed by the California government. The feds didn't join in till several years later. There is much less smog in LA today than there was 40 years ago in spite of the fact there are probably 5 times as many vehicles.

Only on a very short time horizon....the earth's forests have seen far more change before mankind ever existed.

No doubt they will recover when we are gone but until then, we can't do without them.

[bush_cheney2004]

This a bit of revisionist history?

Nope....catalytic converters, air injection pumps, and later engine management systems (e.g. O₂ sensors) were adopted from technology developed for other industries and the military. Leaded gasoline was actually introduced to reduce pre-ignition knock in higher compression engines and improve valve seat wear before being phased out for neurological health reasons starting in the 1970's.

No doubt they will recover when we are gone but until then, we can't do without them.

Perhaps...the earth doesn't care either way. Humans are only a short term "infestation".

[On Guard for Thee]

Nope....catalytic converters, air injection pumps, and later engine management systems (e.g. O₂ sensors) were adopted from technology developed for other industries and the military. Leaded gasoline was actually introduced to reduce pre-ignition knock in higher compression engines and improve valve seat wear before being phased out for neurological health reasons starting in the 1970's.

Perhaps...the earth doesn't care either way. Humans are only a short term "infestation".

OK that's confirmed then. People are regarded by you as an infestation.

[Wilber]

Nope....catalytic converters, air injection pumps, and later engine management systems (e.g. O_{2in /sub] sensors) were adopted from technology developed for other industries and the military. Leaded gasolinewas actually introduced to reduce pre-ignition knock in higher compression engines and improve valve seat wear before being phased out for neurological health reasons starting in the 1970's.}

_{Perhaps...the earth doesn't care either way. Humans are only a short term "infestation".}

_{No doubt some of the technology did exist but much more of it was developed because of government imposed emission standards. Government can also be a market force, as in comply with the regulations if you want to sell your product. Lead was phased out for the same reason other emissions were controlled. They kill people.}

_{We likely are a short term entity, intent on making it even shorter.}

[bush_cheney2004]

No doubt some of the technology did exist but much more of it was developed because of government imposed emission standards.

Right....but such technologies were not mandated by government until the threat was perceived as real. Same deal with climate change....most people do not yet perceive the threat as a real short term threat that can be mitigated by proposed cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes, etc.

We likely are a short term entity, intent on making it even shorter.

"Short" is a relative term...mankind has survived several extreme climate change periods that make today's AGW squabbling look silly.

[Wilber]

Right....but such technologies were not mandated by government until the threat was perceived as real. Same deal with climate change....most people do not yet perceive the threat as a real short term threat that can be mitigated by proposed cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes, etc.

"Short" is a relative term...mankind has survived several extreme climate change periods that make today's AGW squabbling look silly.

The standards were mandated so the technologies had to be developed to meet them. Auto makers pushed back nearly every step of the way. So much for market forces.

Sure mankind has survived several extreme climate change periods but at great cost to the people involved. The present "AGW squabbling" will only look silly until its full implications begin to be felt.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Wilber

[TimG]

The standards were mandated so the technologies had to be developed to meet them. Auto makers pushed back nearly every step of the way. So much for market forces.

There are plenty of examples where governments have been forced to rescind regulations because it simply was not possible to meet (the biofuels mandate is a good example). Government regulation is mot magic. For that reason, regulation targets must be plausible given the technology we have today. All examples of successful regulations were based on plausible technologies even if industry complained about the cost at time. The trouble with AGW is the CO2 phobes no longer think reality constrains them. They insist on arbitrary targets (20% reductions by 20XX) encoded in binding international treaties with absolutely no idea how those targets would be met. Regulations based on such delusional thinking are only going to lead to disaster.

Now if alarmists took a more rational approach and stopped nattering about global targets and deadlines and instead focused on incremental improvements on a industry by industry basis then I would not object so much. But such rational alarmists do not exist and, in fact, anyone suggesting such an incremental approach will likely be called a "denier".

Edited September 29, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

There are plenty of examples where governments have been forced to rescind regulations because it simply was not possible to meet (the biofuels mandate is a good example). Government regulation is mot magic. For that reason, regulation targets must be plausible given the technology we have today. All examples of successful regulations were based on plausible technologies even if industry complained about the cost at time. The trouble with AGW is the CO2 phobes no longer think reality constrains them. They insist on arbitrary targets (20% reductions by 20XX) encoded in binding international treaties with absolutely no idea how those targets would be met. Regulations based on such delusional thinking are only going to lead to disaster.Now if alarmists took a more rational approach and stopped nattering about global targets and deadlines and instead focused on incremental improvements on a industry by industry basis then I would not object so much. But such rational alarmists do not exist and, in fact, anyone suggesting such an incremental approach will likely be called a "denier".

Yes the regulators do over reach at times but without regulations, the manufacturers would have done nothing in regard to either emissions or safety.

You have to have targets when it comes to accomplishing anything. What I don't buy is using the possibility of not reaching a target as an excuse to do nothing at all. Nothing in human history has been accomplished that way.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Wilber

[TimG]

Yes the regulators do over reach at times but without regulations, the manufacturers would have done nothing in regard to either emissions or safety.

Did you notice that I am agreeing that regulations crafted with the limitations of technology in mind can spur innovation in specific sectors?

What I am saying does not work are arbitrary global targets plucked out the air with no thought to what technology could be used to meet those targets.

IOW - yes to regulations mandating gradual improvement in fuel efficiency provided these targets are set in consultation with experts on what is plausible. no to regulations/treaties/promises mandating that Canada reduce its emissions by X% by year Y.

The trouble is alarmists call people "deniers" when they advocate such things.

Edited September 29, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Well where are these people who are advocating incremental changes and what are their targets? The effects of climate change won't be selective or optional.

[Wilber]

What happened in the case of vehicles was the regulators in consultation with experts did come up with standards. Industry had to try and convince them if it wasn't possible. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. Regardless, you have to set a target in order to achieve the effect you need and work toward that target. If it's 20 %, get at it because you will never get there if you don't at least start.