Green new deal equals magical thinking

[kallend 2,027]

1 minute ago, normiss said:

The renewable energy sector is projected to generate more electricity than coal during the month of April, according to a recent report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That's never happened before.

Coal, long the king of the power sector, has already been dethroned by natural gas, a much cleaner burning fossil fuel. Now, coal is facing intensifying pressure from wind and solar power.

"Five years ago this never would have been close to happening," Dennis Wamstead, research analyst at IEEFA, said in an interview. "The transition that's going on in the electric sector in the United States has been phenomenal."

Uh oh! We'll all get wind turbine cancer!

[DJL 235]

3 minutes ago, normiss said:

"Five years ago this never would have been close to happening," Dennis Wamstead, research analyst at IEEFA, said in an interview. "The transition that's going on in the electric sector in the United States has been phenomenal."

To take this back to topic, I don't agree with many aspects of the GND but it's doing it's job of driving the right to the center at the same time as there are more and more examples of the economic benefits both in the short and long term of eliminating fuel sources that have a long term VERY tangible economic impact.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Uh oh! We'll all get wind turbine cancer!

Please, Professor.

It's not 'Wind Turbine Cancer'.

It's "Wind Turbine NOISE Cancer".

The cancer isn't caused by the turbines, at least not directly.

It's caused by the sound. Not sure if the tumors first show up in the ears or not, though.

[DJL 235]

10 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Please, Professor.

It's not 'Wind Turbine Cancer'.

It's "Wind Turbine NOISE Cancer".

The cancer isn't caused by the turbines, at least not directly.

It's caused by the sound. Not sure if the tumors first show up in the ears or not, though.

I think I have twin turbine cancer but my doctor keeps calling it tinnitus.

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Uh oh! We'll all get wind turbine cancer!

And we must now all be living in a socialist hell where we freeze in the dark while we all go broke!

[brenthutch 444]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

About the same time as when smoking has been the primary driver of human health. After all, my father was 91 when he died, and he smoked until he was 65!

Wendy P. 

What is up with this fetish you and BillV have with equating cigarette smoke with CO2?  To compare a known carcinogen with a molecule that is vital for life seems a bit weird, don’t you think?

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What is up with this fetish you and BillV have with equating cigarette smoke with CO2?  To compare a known carcinogen with a molecule that is vital for life seems a bit weird, don’t you think?

So....you know that there are OSHA guidelines as to acceptable CO2 levels in work spaces, right?  That's not the literal comparison they're making but the similarity sure strikes a chord.

[turtlespeed 220]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Brenthutch's posts are indistinguishable from what I'd expect from a Russian troll.

I'm not claiming that he IS a Russian troll.  Just that he is indistinguishable from one.

You need to revise your expectations then.

[turtlespeed 220]

16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, I hope you realize that we (the U.S.), could reduce our carbon footprint to ZERO and global CO2 would continue to rise.

I truly hope that you don't see that as an excuse to not have to at least do SOMETHING about it.

I think the NGD is a pipe dream - that doesnt mean that humans don't need to be more responsible about putting chemicals in the atmosphere and biosphere.

 

 

[turtlespeed 220]

4 hours ago, DJL said:

To take this back to topic, I don't agree with many aspects of the GND but it's doing it's job of driving the right to the center at the same time as there are more and more examples of the economic benefits both in the short and long term of eliminating fuel sources that have a long term VERY tangible economic impact.

Ah - 

Most of us were already in the center.

The problem I have is the level of dishonesty and false claims made.

I cannot stand a situation where integrity is compromised by exaggeration just to see how much you can get.

Its right below living completely on welfare or off the government when you are able bodied, and able minded..

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What is up with this fetish you and BillV have with equating cigarette smoke with CO2?  To compare a known carcinogen with a molecule that is vital for life seems a bit weird, don’t you think?

Well, above a certain level, CO2 is toxic.

 

But the main reason for comparing CO2 to cigarettes is the Heartland Institute.

They made a LOT of money off of the tobacco companies. Publishing 'research' that showed that cigarettes weren't dangerous. Or minimizing the dangers.

These days, they make their money publishing 'research' that tries to deny climate change. Or that tries to present CO2 as 'not a danger'. Like the video posted a few pages back.
They also funnel funding to denier websites. Like "Wattsupwiththat", one of Marc's favorites.

[billvon 2,991]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What is up with this fetish you and BillV have with equating cigarette smoke with CO2?  To compare a known carcinogen with a molecule that is vital for life seems a bit weird, don’t you think?

The strategies behind climate change denial and denial of the risks of smoking are VERY similar.  The same strategies have been used by cigarette companies and oil companies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about both medical science and climate science to avoid reduction in their profits.  In fact, even the very same people (Singer and Seitz) worked on both efforts.

"Known carcinogen?"  Cigarette companies paid millions to dispute that, and claimed the science wasn't settled.  They even paid doctors to recommend their products as safe.  They reduce stress!  Make your throat feel better!  Ignore the liberals!

But in any case no one is trying to equate nicotine with CO2.  Nor is anyone trying to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere.  Climate scientists are saying that putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a warmer climate and a more acidic ocean.  The solution is to put less in the atmosphere, not none.

[turtlespeed 220]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

The strategies behind climate change denial and denial of the risks of smoking are VERY similar.  The same strategies have been used by cigarette companies and oil companies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about both medical science and climate science to avoid reduction in their profits.  In fact, even the very same people (Singer and Seitz) worked on both efforts.

"Known carcinogen?"  Cigarette companies paid millions to dispute that, and claimed the science wasn't settled.  They even paid doctors to recommend their products as safe.  They reduce stress!  Make your throat feel better!  Ignore the liberals!

But in any case no one is trying to equate nicotine with CO2.  Nor is anyone trying to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere.  Climate scientists are saying that putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a warmer climate and a more acidic ocean.  The solution is to put less in the atmosphere, not none.

Are we allowed to agree on this much?

Water - or - Dihydrogen Monoxide - is essential for life - but just a LITTLE bit too much and . . . . its curtains for ya.

[DJL 235]

49 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The problem I have is the level of dishonesty and false claims made.

I cannot stand a situation where integrity is compromised by exaggeration just to see how much you can get.

I'm not sure what body of claims you're referring to but the spectrum starts with scientific data and recommendations on one end and people who only read Mother Jones on the other.  I see where you'd take what the GND wants to do as an exaggeration of what we need to do but that's just a discussion of bargaining position.  The body of research that has been peer reviewed and independently verified may not be perfect but it's far from dishonest and false (I don't think you're saying that, just clarifying my words out loud).

[SkyDekker 1,465]

58 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I cannot stand a situation where integrity is compromised by exaggeration just to see how much you can get.

I see that as the current Modus Operandi of the US President and government.

[airdvr 210]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a denier...merely undecided but definitely leaning towards the denier side of the equation.  I try not to get too excited about it because regardless of what I think the climate change train has left the station and there is little I can do to change the track.  There might be something to it...maybe not.  Still I'm old enough now to remember several "world is coming to an end" scenarios that required government spending and new laws, all of which probably changed things for the better, all the while taking more of my pocket money.

Anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer?  It was so important we close it.  Of course now some CG folks say closing the hole might actually be a bad thing for global warming.  There are plenty of other examples where our good intentions actually made things worse.  But I digress...

No one hires a fireman if there's no chance of fire.  The industry that is now Climate Change is being funded in spectacular amounts.  By some estimates in the trillions of dollars.  All the while we're supposed to trust that the folks who receive this money are above the temptation of cooking the books.  Maybe...but that's not what history has shown.

Anyways, like I said I don't get too excited about it.  I've accepted that enough people are convinced we can do something about it that there is little hope that we won't.

[pchapman 279]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I cannot stand a situation where integrity is compromised by exaggeration just to see how much you can get.

Oh, like Trump's entire life & career?

[gowlerk 2,192]

27 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer? 

Yes, and we did largely fix that potential problem. If we had not it would be getting to be a bigger problem by now. That argument works in the opposite direction you are trying for.

 

29 minutes ago, airdvr said:

The industry that is now Climate Change is being funded in spectacular amounts.

That statement is a falsehood, or at best a gross exaggeration.

[turtlespeed 220]

5 minutes ago, pchapman said:

Oh, like Trump's entire life & career?

You sound like some of the hard right here - 

"But Trump"

WTF does trump have to do with the GND and how is his inclusion (other than a distraction from context and deviation from the topic) relevant?

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

I see that as the current Modus Operandi of the US President and government.

Do you have any other thought processes beside "I hate Trump"?

 

To be fair - I have a similar knee jerk reaction to Hillary - I have just learned to control it better than I used to.  I do remember when it was like that though.  

Edited May 3, 2019 by turtlespeed
Added a clarification -

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Do you have any other thought processes beside "I hate Trump"?

Just pointing out that you clearly can stand for such behaviour.

So to answer your question, yes I can. I also have through processes around how hypocritical some people are. 

[Coreece 190]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

35 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer? 

Yes, and we did largely fix that potential problem. If we had not it would be getting to be a bigger problem by now.

Maybe we should've left the hole open for all the hot air to escape.

[turtlespeed 220]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Just pointing out that you clearly can stand for such behaviour.

So to answer your question, yes I can. I also have through processes around how hypocritical some people are. 

How am I standing for such behavior? - Looks like my spell check says I'm right in the spelling BTW.

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

How am I standing for such behavior? - Looks like my spell check says I'm right in the spelling BTW.

 

Colour me surprised our neighbours cannot spell behaviour.

You stand for this behaviour by stating you prefer it over Hillary as president.

[billvon 2,991]

8 hours ago, airdvr said:

Anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer?  It was so important we close it. 

?? Right.  It was a big deal.  So we took action - the whole world (coordinated through the UN Montreal Convention) virtually stopped making CFC's and switched to alternatives.  That fixed the problem; the ozone hole is closing and will be back to normal by ~2030 in the Northern hemisphere and ~2060 in the Southern hemisphere.  If you are proposing a similar solution for climate change then we are on the same page.

Quote

No one hires a fireman if there's no chance of fire.  The industry that is now Climate Change is being funded in spectacular amounts.  By some estimates in the trillions of dollars.  All the while we're supposed to trust that the folks who receive this money are above the temptation of cooking the books.  Maybe...but that's not what history has shown.

So firemen set (or facilitate) most of the fires so they can get more money?  I don't think you know many firemen, then.  (or scientists.)