StreetScooby 5 #1 March 31, 2014 Good read... Full disclosure, I do not think it is a good idea to keep dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere... Flame away... The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate Quote But now, for the first time, we have NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) as a counter to the IPCC, as an independent voice, a second opinion, if you will -- something that was advocated by the IAC (InterAcademy Council on Science). We now have a credible number of studies, which the IPCC chose to ignore in reaching their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The NIPCC reports were also published in September 2013 (Physical Science), and in March and April of 2014 (Biological Impacts and Societal Impacts). Quote **The costs of trying to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions vastly exceed the benefits. Annual cost per US household would run to some $3,900; would destroy millions of jobs. **In light of the new science and economics of climate change, thousands of laws passed at the height of the global warming scare need to be re-evaluated, modified, or repealed. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #2 March 31, 2014 StreetScoobyFull disclosure, I do not think it is a good idea to keep dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere... What I've always found funny about the AGW debate over CO2 emissions is the myriad of other good reasons to wean off the burning of fossil fuels as an energy source. Why has AGW become this lynchpin of sorts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #3 March 31, 2014 QuoteWhat I've always found funny about the AGW debate over CO2 emissions is the myriad of other good reasons to wean off the burning of fossil fuels as an energy source. Why has AGW become this lynchpin of sorts? Because it's much harder to argue against the obvious fact that it would reduce our dependence on people who hate us. Science is a lot easier to confuse people about. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #4 March 31, 2014 Quote Why has AGW become this lynchpin of sorts? A while ago, I spent a fair amount of time looking at "real science literature" re: AGW. I walked away very impressed by what I saw. Some very smart and dedicated people are working on this, and they are very upfront about what they know and what they don't know. I've become jaded with the "Al Gore" types. It comes across as a power/money ploy to me, at this point in time.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 March 31, 2014 Quote against the obvious fact that it would reduce our dependence on people who hate us. That's a good point, IMO. Quote Science is a lot easier to confuse people about. I've learned to avoid getting into AGW discussion with people, by and large. But, when I find myself in one (at least face to face), I now always ask two questions: 1) How much warming is due to the water vapor greenhouse effect? (~60degF, we/people wouldn't be here without it ). 2) What is the weight fraction of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. (0.0004). Not one of the rabid AGW proponents I've had this conversation with had any clue to those answers. Doesn't inspire confidence in me, and I tend to end the conversation quickly afterwards. Again, I absolutely do not think it is a good idea to keep pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Likewise, I do not think an increase in 2 degF over ~100 years is going to destroy the planet. The only viable solution that can meet developed countries energy needs, right now, is nuclear. Of course, rabid AGW types are adamantly opposed to that idea. My next response tends to be - When is someone going to write "Living in Trees for Dummies"? I will absolutely buy that book, and read it. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #6 March 31, 2014 champu***Full disclosure, I do not think it is a good idea to keep dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere... What I've always found funny about the AGW debate over CO2 emissions is the myriad of other good reasons to wean off the burning of fossil fuels as an energy source. Why has AGW become this lynchpin of sorts? Who RUNS the CO2 business and wishes all regulation to disappear that costs them billions in fines... instead of having that money to line their already full pockets... and you will have your come to Jesus moment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 March 31, 2014 There is usually little sense in putting out a different perspective. For the messenger will be attacked before the underlying message is read. Underlying message of the NIPCC is that the IPCC and the scientists don't provide direct evidence of AGW - or even climate change. Hypothesis: dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. Null hypothesis - observed changes are the result of natural variability. Invalidation of the null hypothesis requires specified changes in the climate system that lie outside of natural variability. Climate scientists can't show it. So what do they do? Point to any weather phenomemon and say that while they can't attribute it to climate change, they'll attribute it to climate change because it is "consistent" with predictions." The NIPCC report actually is nice because it tries to strip through the rhetoric and get to the science. The IPCC is a political entity - one cannot look at something with "intergovernmental" in the title and strip the political element. It cannot happen. The NIPCC has a place in the debate. Absolutely. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #8 March 31, 2014 Quote The NIPCC has a place in the debate. Absolutely. Agreed.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #9 March 31, 2014 champu***Full disclosure, I do not think it is a good idea to keep dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere... What I've always found funny about the AGW debate over CO2 emissions is the myriad of other good reasons to wean off the burning of fossil fuels as an energy source. Why has AGW become this lynchpin of sorts? Because there is no solution to replace fossil fuels, since nobody has balls to build more nukes. Sure there is a lot of wishful thinking about green energy but most of it is just non-sense. So why depress and cause panic in the populace with a real problem when you can mislead them into a pointless political argument they can rage about on the facebook.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #10 March 31, 2014 DanG the obvious fact that it would reduce our dependence on people who hate us. Except that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Nice dream but let's reside in the real world. We, as a country are either unable (you & me) or unwilling (me) to make the necessary changes to have an impact on pollution levels. It's economic suicide, and that doesn't even begin to take into account China and India. I'm more concerned that we don't have much of a space program to go find another planet to pollute when we eventually kill this one.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,460 #11 March 31, 2014 QuoteWe, as a country are either unable (you & me) or unwilling (me) to make the necessary changes to have an impact on pollution levels.However we, as individuals, can make choices that in the aggregate might give the country more time to figure out how to keep going forward without having to go find a new planet. Just as part of the benefit of recycling is that cities don't have to go find a new dump nearly as often. Saves tax dollars. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #12 March 31, 2014 QuoteWhat I've always found funny about the AGW debate over CO2 emissions is the myriad of other good reasons to wean off the burning of fossil fuels as an energy source. Why has AGW become this lynchpin of sorts? DanGBecause it's much harder to argue against the obvious fact that it would reduce our dependence on people who hate us. Science is a lot easier to confuse people about. AmazonWho RUNS the CO2 business and wishes all regulation to disappear that costs them billions in fines... instead of having that money to line their already full pockets... and you will have your come to Jesus moment. ArvoitusSo why depress and cause panic in the populace with a real problem when you can mislead them into a pointless political argument they can rage about on the facebook. These responses reinforce the point I was trying to make by asking the question. Why make AGW the focal point in the debate for all the measures you want to take in an effort to prevent it if it is the worst venue to have the debate and the venue that your opponents prefer? Are people of the opinion that none of the parties involved in the debate (scientist, politician, pundit, or otherwise) have any desire but to argue as a distraction? Arvoitus...since nobody has balls to build more nukes... Now there's an interesting angle, "Nuclear Power: The French haven't surrendered to its challenges, will you?" airdvrI'm more concerned that we don't have much of a space program- Hey! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #13 March 31, 2014 champu These responses reinforce the point I was trying to make by asking the question. Why make AGW the focal point in the debate for all the measures you want to take in an effort to prevent it if it is the worst venue to have the debate and the venue that your opponents prefer? Are people of the opinion that none of the parties involved in the debate (scientist, politician, pundit, or otherwise) have any desire but to argue as a distraction? I think that most scientist just study whatever phenomena they're interested in and then report any findings they might have. Then bunch of politicians, with zero understanding what was studied and what the results mean, dragged them into this debate by questioning their results, which obviously the scientist want to defend, since politicians have no fucking clue what they're on about. The real problem is the politicians. They can't and won't think further then the next election cycle. And most of these big issues require making decision with long term effects that might negatively impact their changes of being re-elected so its easier to make huge mess of everything and start arguing over useless shit.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,030 #14 March 31, 2014 Arvoitus*** These responses reinforce the point I was trying to make by asking the question. Why make AGW the focal point in the debate for all the measures you want to take in an effort to prevent it if it is the worst venue to have the debate and the venue that your opponents prefer? Are people of the opinion that none of the parties involved in the debate (scientist, politician, pundit, or otherwise) have any desire but to argue as a distraction? I think that most scientist just study whatever phenomena they're interested in and then report any findings they might have. Then bunch of politicians, with zero understanding what was studied and what the results mean, dragged them into this debate by questioning their results, which obviously the scientist want to defend, since politicians have no fucking clue what they're on about. And the lawyers! Don't forget lawyers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #15 March 31, 2014 wmw999QuoteWe, as a country are either unable (you & me) or unwilling (me) to make the necessary changes to have an impact on pollution levels.However we, as individuals, can make choices that in the aggregate might give the country more time to figure out how to keep going forward without having to go find a new planet. Just as part of the benefit of recycling is that cities don't have to go find a new dump nearly as often. Saves tax dollars. Wendy P. Agreed. But that in and of itself won't change the stated outcomes, only delay.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #16 March 31, 2014 QuoteExcept that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Nice dream but let's reside in the real world. We, as a country are either unable (you & me) or unwilling (me) to make the necessary changes to have an impact on pollution levels. It's economic suicide, and that doesn't even begin to take into account China and India. I'm not talking about pollution. I'm talking about energy. Right now, the only reason we give two fucks about the Middle East (besides Israel, which is another thread) is oil. If we wean ourselves off oil, we can tell the Saudis (and the Russians and Venezuelans) to take a hike. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,460 #17 March 31, 2014 Well delaying the outcome can change it. Technology can be developed, we can find out that our models weren't perfect, all kinds of things. However doing nothing until we are certain is stupid. I generally apply brakes and swerve gently if I see a potential problem ahead on the road. I don't wait until I'm right on top of it. It might have gone away, moved, or developed exactly like it started out. But going a little slower gives me time it figure things out. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #18 March 31, 2014 DanGQuoteExcept that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Nice dream but let's reside in the real world. We, as a country are either unable (you & me) or unwilling (me) to make the necessary changes to have an impact on pollution levels. It's economic suicide, and that doesn't even begin to take into account China and India. I'm not talking about pollution. I'm talking about energy. Right now, the only reason we give two fucks about the Middle East (besides Israel, which is another thread) is oil. If we wean ourselves off oil, we can tell the Saudis (and the Russians and Venezuelans) to take a hike. Which side do you come down on coal fired electricity?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #19 March 31, 2014 True, but where do you draw the line?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #20 April 1, 2014 QuoteWhich side do you come down on coal fired electricity? I'm against it. Too many pollutants, regardless of the greenhouse effect. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #21 April 1, 2014 Don't forget the lawyers? Okay. [Url]http://m.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change#energy-menu[/url] Maybe these lawyers can do to fossil fuels what Nader did to nuclear power. Or what Robert Kennedy, Jr. did for vaccinations. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #22 April 1, 2014 DanGQuoteWhich side do you come down on coal fired electricity? I'm against it. Too many pollutants, regardless of the greenhouse effect. Don't forget the "cost" of getting it out of the ground. Environmental damage from the actual mining (strip mining is just about the worst kind there is), the toll it takes on the people who mine it - both short term and long term (deaths in the mine, and health effects like black lung). Coal is "cheap and easy" in the short term, but not so much if you look at the entire picture and in the longer term."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 April 1, 2014 DanGQuoteWhich side do you come down on coal fired electricity? I'm against it. Too many pollutants, regardless of the greenhouse effect. Okay. Considering that coal-fired power gave rise to the industrial revolution, is basically what delineates the third-world from the developed world, drives information technology (no coal power = no computers) and kept people alive and warm in winter and alive and cool in summer... But you don't like it because it pollutes. I'm one of those weirdos that thinks that those things that do stuff like keep people alive are good things. Shut down all coal-fired energy and how many tens off millions will die in the US within six months? I have no doubt that we could have been free of coal by now. Too bad the anti-nukers of the 1970s got too much clout by playing the fear game. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #24 April 1, 2014 QuoteShut down all coal-fired energy and how many tens off millions will die in the US within six months? Please be so kind as to point out where I said anything about shutting down all coal fired energy in the next six months. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 April 1, 2014 [Reply]Coal is "cheap and easy" in the short term, but not so much if you look at the entire picture and in the longer term. Of course. Everything does. Look at the cost of the nylon over our heads. It comes from crude oil. Look at the cost in lives with wars over oil, etc. Finding any product without a long list of negatives is a fool's errand. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
