Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[gowlerk 2,191]

billvon

Quote

No Bill, a little thing called reality won't let me do that. fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Right. By that time, renewables will make up about 15% of our total energy mix (up from about 6% today.) Heading in the right direction, but slowly.

And the emissions that result from the burning of those fossil fuels will increase CO2 concentrations, which will also increase warming. (That's science.)

Man that's depressing. I knew it was challenging, but I thought it was going better than that.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

airdvr

***>Regulations based on manipulated data, and falsehoods do not make for good
>policy regardless of the Party in power.

Agreed! It would be great if you'd follow through on that and give up on the fossil fuel funded falsehoods that make up the climate change denial industry, but I have a feeling that your politics will never let you do that.

Sorry Bill. Maybe when you're a bit older you'll begin to see a pattern...

In 1970 these were the predictions;

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

So...BTDT.

Well those guys were scientists, so they had to be right. It is science after all.

[brenthutch 444]

gowlerk

***

Quote

No Bill, a little thing called reality won't let me do that. fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Right. By that time, renewables will make up about 15% of our total energy mix (up from about 6% today.) Heading in the right direction, but slowly.

And the emissions that result from the burning of those fossil fuels will increase CO2 concentrations, which will also increase warming. (That's science.)

Man that's depressing. I knew it was challenging, but I thought it was going better than that.

You didn't think, you guessed and you guessed wrong. Don't worry about it, you have lots of company.

[Stumpy 284]

gowlerk

***

Quote

No Bill, a little thing called reality won't let me do that. fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Right. By that time, renewables will make up about 15% of our total energy mix (up from about 6% today.) Heading in the right direction, but slowly.

And the emissions that result from the burning of those fossil fuels will increase CO2 concentrations, which will also increase warming. (That's science.)

Man that's depressing. I knew it was challenging, but I thought it was going better than that.

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. In fact I suspect China will surpass the US quite quickly on this.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[brenthutch 444]

Stumpy

******

Quote

No Bill, a little thing called reality won't let me do that. fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Right. By that time, renewables will make up about 15% of our total energy mix (up from about 6% today.) Heading in the right direction, but slowly.

And the emissions that result from the burning of those fossil fuels will increase CO2 concentrations, which will also increase warming. (That's science.)

Man that's depressing. I knew it was challenging, but I thought it was going better than that.

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better.

Yes, and many more countries will demand more and more fossil fuel to power their developing economies. The result is that world demand will be inline with US demand for the next several decades (80% fossil fuels).

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. In fact I suspect China will surpass the US quite quickly on this.

Yep. And with them will go the jobs and the money.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

Quote

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. In fact I suspect China will surpass the US quite quickly on this.

Yep. And with them will go the jobs and the money.

Why would that happen? If wind and solar are as awesome as you claim, I see no reason they cannot flourish along with gas, oil and coal. Remember the Obama energy policy? All of the above! The more free-market options we have the cheaper our energy will be and that helps everyone.

[kallend 2,027]

brenthutch

***

Quote

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. In fact I suspect China will surpass the US quite quickly on this.

Yep. And with them will go the jobs and the money.

Why would that happen? If wind and solar are as awesome as you claim, I see no reason they cannot flourish along with gas, oil and coal. Remember the Obama energy policy? All of the above! The more free-market options we have the cheaper our energy will be and that helps everyone.

To be properly "free market", ALL costs need to be included. Including the cost of cleaning up afterwards.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Phil1111 1,149]

kallend

******

Quote

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. In fact I suspect China will surpass the US quite quickly on this.

Yep. And with them will go the jobs and the money.

Why would that happen? If wind and solar are as awesome as you claim, I see no reason they cannot flourish along with gas, oil and coal. Remember the Obama energy policy? All of the above! The more free-market options we have the cheaper our energy will be and that helps everyone.

To be properly "free market", ALL costs need to be included. Including the cost of cleaning up afterwards.

Winner, ding,ding,ding.

Something that coal, big oil, nat gas and brenthutch don't want to recognize. Start pricing black lung, Oklahoma earthquake damages due to fracking, abandoned oil rig cleanups, etc.

[brenthutch 444]

When properly calculated, the SCC (social cost of carbon) is actually negitive.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******

Quote

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. In fact I suspect China will surpass the US quite quickly on this.

Yep. And with them will go the jobs and the money.

Why would that happen? If wind and solar are as awesome as you claim, I see no reason they cannot flourish along with gas, oil and coal. Remember the Obama energy policy? All of the above! The more free-market options we have the cheaper our energy will be and that helps everyone.

To be properly "free market", ALL costs need to be included. Including the cost of cleaning up afterwards.

BINGO!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

kallend

******

Quote

In the US, yes. In many other countries it's going much MUCH better. In fact I suspect China will surpass the US quite quickly on this.

Yep. And with them will go the jobs and the money.

Why would that happen? If wind and solar are as awesome as you claim, I see no reason they cannot flourish along with gas, oil and coal. Remember the Obama energy policy? All of the above! The more free-market options we have the cheaper our energy will be and that helps everyone.

To be properly "free market", ALL costs need to be included. Including the cost of cleaning up afterwards.

Haha...you used free market when talking about the US energy supply. Nothing is free market about any of it. Its simply the government picking the winners and losers.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[brenthutch 444]

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/04/03/east-coast-crawling-with-polar-bears-since-early-march-thanks-to-the-pack-ice/

Be safe up there, it looks like polar bears love higher CO2.

[DJL 235]

brenthutch

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/04/03/east-coast-crawling-with-polar-bears-since-early-march-thanks-to-the-pack-ice/

Be safe up there, it looks like polar bears love higher CO2.

I'm not sure that polar bears concentrated into an area in which they were not previously recorded to be concentrated is a good thing.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 444]

Given their population growth it only makes sense that they expand their range.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/22/polar-bear-population-is-rising-despite-green-fears/

[DJL 235]

Clubbing baby seals also turned out to not be so bad:

http://orig01.deviantart.net/dc40/f/2007/054/7/3/clubbing_baby_seals_by_sethness.jpg

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[ryoder 1,590]

For some amusing news in coal today:
Kentucky Coal Mining Museum in Harlan County switches to solar power
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/06/the-coal-mining-museum-in-harlan-county-ky-switches-to-solar-power/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,991]

>it looks like polar bears love higher CO2.

CO2 - it's got what bears crave!

[billvon 2,991]

>Kentucky Coal Mining Museum in Harlan County switches to solar power

Their reasoning:

“We believe that this project will help save at least $8,000 to $10,000 off the energy costs on this building alone, so it’s a very worthy effort and it’s going to save the college money in the long run."

They would like to use coal power. They just can't afford it.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Kentucky Coal Mining Museum in Harlan County switches to solar power

Their reasoning:

“We believe that this project will help save at least $8,000 to $10,000 off the energy costs on this building alone, so it’s a very worthy effort and it’s going to save the college money in the long run."

They would like to use coal power. They just can't afford it.

If non-subsidized installation costs, along with maintenance and energy costs saves them money, then it makes sense.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone on this site who disagrees with that.

Sad you have to turn it into a joke or political gotcha point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>If non-subsidized installation costs, along with maintenance and energy costs saves
>them money, then it makes sense.

Agreed. And here we have an example of an organization choosing solar - an organizatiion that has a reason to shun solar power, in the state with the fourth worst solar incentives in the country (only Arkansas, Oklahoma and Alabama are worse.)

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>If non-subsidized installation costs, along with maintenance and energy costs saves
>them money, then it makes sense.

Agreed. And here we have an example of an organization choosing solar - an organizatiion that has a reason to shun solar power, in the state with the fourth worst solar incentives in the country (only Arkansas, Oklahoma and Alabama are worse.)

The way solar has improved it makes more sense to me than wind by a long shot. But then wind can not yet make sense economically without the big tax advantages. (I still see battery advances having a big impact on the viability of wind in the future too)

But you can not have an adult conversation about this unless you put some kind of spin on it. Why would a smartly run organization or company "shun" anything that makes economic sense?? Don't they owe themselves or the stock holders the best decisions they can make?

Come on Bill, you are better than this.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Kentucky Coal Mining Museum in Harlan County switches to solar power

Their reasoning:

“We believe that this project will help save at least $8,000 to $10,000 off the energy costs on this building alone, so it’s a very worthy effort and it’s going to save the college money in the long run."

They would like to use coal power. They just can't afford it.

As it should be, economics over ideology. As prices continue to drop and as battery technology improves solar will become more feasible for more applications. It may even double to 2% electric generation in the US.

[billvon 2,991]

>Why would a smartly run organization or company "shun" anything that makes
>economic sense?

Political reasons. In this case, a museum dedicated to an industry that is perceived to be "under attack" by renewable energy.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Why would a smartly run organization or company "shun" anything that makes
>economic sense?

Political reasons. In this case, a museum dedicated to an industry that is perceived to be "under attack" by renewable energy.

They would not be under attack by renewable energy. They are under attack by politically motivated tree huggers.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln