BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 31 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-09-2010, 12:50 PM   #451
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
No. Climate Change is loaded terminology precisely because we are to assume that it is "Man made Climate Change". Since scientists have failed in calculating natural climate change (which has much more variation throughout the history of the planet) the models they use are garbage in - garbage out.
ummm...yes
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 03:58 PM   #452
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:43 PM
Pretty much everything in this debate can be debunked (accurately or not), on both sides, including the debunkings.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:30 PM   #453
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:43 PM
Lightfoot has a bachelors in Mechanical Engineering.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you Oscar, Mr Lightfoot and you can go in 50/50.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:01 PM   #454
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Pretty much everything in this debate can be debunked (accurately or not), on both sides, including the debunkings.
Depending on what you mean. The warmers made claims and they were debunked. The debunkers haven't made any claims on the absolute certainty what causes climate change because more studies are needed. For example currently nobody can say 25% (sun), 25% (Anthropogenic CO2), 25% (oceans), 25% (land use). They just make estimates and put them into models to make predictions on what they think is natural. This is fine as long as they try to find out why the models were wrong and adjust them before media gets any alarms. We shouldn't be getting alarms until the science is settled.

Pointing out heat, cold, melting, freezing is correlation, not causation. The reality is that there are probably so many factors involved that they will have a hard time forecasting a year from now let alone 50 years. The only thing keeping this floating is the general public's response to the appeal to authority argument which works for many people, but it's erroding fast.

It's going to be awhile before we can get open transparent debate between both sides, which is what is BADLY needed. The peer-review system has to be cleared up. And this is just the science. The economic reality is that the U.S. better get its finances in shape before they remove 2% of GDP every year. I prefer to look at energy security as a different problem and that would allow for natural gas (cleaner than coal) to be an option and funding on renewable resources until they are at least as good as nuclear or preferrably better to prevent massive reductions in economic growth.

For example:

YouTube - Craig Venter: On the verge of creating synthetic life
13:00

Or:

YouTube - Nuclear Fusion

Of course there will be other options that may come in the future.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:07 PM   #455
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Lightfoot has a bachelors in Mechanical Engineering.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you Oscar, Mr Lightfoot and you can go in 50/50.
Here's another example of appeal to authority.

He's just posting an opinion that gets to the heart of the debate. He's not showing climate models or his own climatology studies. I'm an accountant. I'm not showing MY research. I'm talking about the debate OTHER researchers are engaged in and displaying variances between predictions and observed results. Or are you saying that only climatologists can talk about the debate? Your facetiousness knows no bounds.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:24 PM   #456
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Here's another example of appeal to authority.

He's just posting an opinion that gets to the heart of the debate. He's not showing climate models or his own climatology studies. I'm an accountant. I'm not showing MY research. I'm talking about the debate OTHER researchers are engaged in and displaying variances between predictions and observed results. Or are you saying that only climatologists can talk about the debate? Your facetiousness knows no bounds.
I'm saying this guy is par for the course when it comes to experts you have posted. This guy has a paid for agenda and isn't qualified to make the leaps that he does...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:30 PM   #457
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I'm saying this guy is par for the course when it comes to experts you have posted. This guy has a paid for agenda and isn't qualified to make the leaps that he does...
Uh...no it isn't. Most of what I posted comes from climate scientists and astrophysicists but you just choose to call it "crap" and move on. Also the "paid for agenda" is being pointed on both sides. Everybody gets paid via industry or government and not all skeptics or believers fit into the obvious categories. Some in government are skeptical and some in industry are for cap and trade.

Here's some other skeptics:

YouTube - climategate on finnish television 1/3

YouTube - climategate on finnish television 2/3

YouTube - climategate on finnish television 3/3
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:44 PM   #458
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Most of what I posted comes from climate scientists
Um, a small portion... Let's be honest.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:56 PM   #459
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Um, a small portion... Let's be honest.
The entire Lord Monckton presentation is from actual scientists and encompasses astrophysics and climatology. All I'm doing is reminding people with the same evidence over and over again because the IPCC pro-AGW point of view keeps repeating over and over again their catastrophic claims. The main new study I posted includes more uncertainty over how much CO2 is absorbed or not. The rest is what political commentators think about that evidence because politics and economics is also involved in the conversation.

Also some people on this board don't care which side is right but are wanting some change to more energy independence and preparation for climate change (natural or manmade) including Lightfoot which is a continuation of my conversation with Phillyfan.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 01-09-2010, 06:04 PM   #460
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:43 PM
But you have ALWAYS approached this issue from an economic and political side first and then found the "science" that backs up your side's stance. You've posted science that contradicted what you were trying to say, you've posted "science" from people who were not even scientist, and "science" from people who were doing shitty backyard science experiments that anyone beyond 7th grade could find the faults in, which just shows us your understanding of science in general is very weak. You also only talk about the IPCC and never tackle the science outside of this organization that back them up. So your agenda is much much more transparent then most people.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-10-2010, 10:40 AM   #461
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But you have ALWAYS approached this issue from an economic and political side first and then found the "science" that backs up your side's stance. You've posted science that contradicted what you were trying to say, you've posted "science" from people who were not even scientist, and "science" from people who were doing shitty backyard science experiments that anyone beyond 7th grade could find the faults in, which just shows us your understanding of science in general is very weak. You also only talk about the IPCC and never tackle the science outside of this organization that back them up. So your agenda is much much more transparent then most people.
There you go again. I've posted skeptical science. If others (including yourself) want to publish IPCC reports and other AGW scientists then by all means go ahead. Everyone knows what the IPCC thinks at nauseum, and any who aren't a part of the IPCC and agree with the IPCC then the argument against the IPCC works for both. They politically push people out of the debate with their "peer-review" process and we have evidence of this with the emails. You can't escape politics and economics precisely because the IPCC is a political body and cap and trade is about economics. You can't allow them leeway on this and say I can't talk about politics and economics. Also because of the emails we have to look at the science outside of East Anglia because we are getting hockey stick graphs around the world and urban island heat effects that have errors as large as the warming.

We have been over this before with the solar panels. Having some solar panels work in specific regions is not the solution to the world's energy market yet you keep harping on it like it's a relevant argument. The articles I posted on solar panels show that they are too expensive precisely because not enough energy can be extracted so it can't even compete with nuclear let alone fossil fuels. Then you ignore Spain which had over 30% increase in fuel prices. Did you read about that? Again your facetiousness continues.

I've also posted from pro-AGW scientists and their predictions in the past few years which make "backyard science experiments" look good. My agenda is to put the lie of consensus and settled science out the window because we know it's not settled and there is no consensus. My agenda is transparent (that's the point). I'm not trying to hide anything because there is no inbetween. It's either a catastrophic crisis as claimed by other agendas or it's not. Most of what A Wanderer has posted also has caveats (with some hints at catastrophe) that make it again uncertain. He even has posts quoted from sources he likes that put skepticism on model predictions while at the same time trying to say we should trust those models. Then he posted that we should go ahead with a precautionary principle. Most people are okay with precaution if it doesn't cost trillions of dollars and halts development in the 3rd world. I thought a leftist would naturally understand that. But hey I'm not supposed to talk about politics and economics because we need to worship at the altar of scientists. In fact why don't we just eliminate elections because we the people are too stupid to know what's good for us and just have scientists run the economy in a technocratic dictatorship?

People are sick and tired of bogus alarmism. Whatever orange alerts you leftists complain about under Bush is nothing like WWF and the U.N. They've made erroneous off the wall predictions but I don't see you calling those scientists hacks. The fact that they get away with this tells me that skeptics are on the right track. There's a trackrecord that goes back decades involving dead oceans, ice ages, Malthusian starvation that all have proven way off the mark. Why shouldn't I be skeptical?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 01-10-2010, 11:38 AM   #462
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:43 PM
More reason to be skeptical from a guy within the IPCC:

[My emphasis]

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

Quote:
The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.


‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.

Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years.

As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).

For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.

For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’.

It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer.

'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’

As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted.

Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole. In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow.

‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’

He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.

For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’

Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’

Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’


Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.

He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’

He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?

Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.

Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater.


William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.

According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’

But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact.

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion. [So is it global warming or climate change?]
It's obvious that the science isn't settled. Even predicting with oceans isn't going to be the only method since there are probably other variables like how cosmic rays are affected by the sun. Until it's settled I don't want to hear about catastrophe.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 01-10-2010, 02:53 PM   #463
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
There you go again. I've posted skeptical science. If others (including yourself) want to publish IPCC reports and other AGW scientists then by all means go ahead. Everyone knows what the IPCC thinks at nauseum, and any who aren't a part of the IPCC and agree with the IPCC then the argument against the IPCC works for both. They politically push people out of the debate with their "peer-review" process and we have evidence of this with the emails. You can't escape politics and economics precisely because the IPCC is a political body and cap and trade is about economics. You can't allow them leeway on this and say I can't talk about politics and economics. Also because of the emails we have to look at the science outside of East Anglia because we are getting hockey stick graphs around the world and urban island heat effects that have errors as large as the warming.
I'm saying you are driven by economics and politics first, and then you find the science. That's the bullshit way to do this, it's why most of your "scientist" have been found faulty as well. And how does the argument against the IPCC work for science outside the IPCC, that doesn't make any sense what so ever. You're losing it Oscar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
We have been over this before with the solar panels. Having some solar panels work in specific regions is not the solution to the world's energy market yet you keep harping on it like it's a relevant argument. The articles I posted on solar panels show that they are too expensive precisely because not enough energy can be extracted so it can't even compete with nuclear let alone fossil fuels. Then you ignore Spain which had over 30% increase in fuel prices. Did you read about that? Again your facetiousness continues.
But it does work and is cost efficient for certain parts of the planet(like YOUR article said), just like wind is for other parts of the planet, you always choose to ignore that fact. If you actually address this point this time, you win a prize.

You've used it twice now, I'm not quite sure you know the definition of 'facetious' because you're using it wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I thought a leftist would naturally understand that. But hey I'm not supposed to talk about politics and economics because we need to worship at the altar of scientists. In fact why don't we just eliminate elections because we the people are too stupid to know what's good for us and just have scientists run the economy in a technocratic dictatorship?
This is reason 1,256 why no one can take you seriously in here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
People are sick and tired of bogus alarmism. Whatever orange alerts you leftists complain about under Bush is nothing like WWF and the U.N. They've made erroneous off the wall predictions but I don't see you calling those scientists hacks. The fact that they get away with this tells me that skeptics are on the right track. There's a trackrecord that goes back decades involving dead oceans, ice ages, Malthusian starvation that all have proven way off the mark. Why shouldn't I be skeptical?
We've gone over the alarmism time and time again, you don't get it, I don't know how else to explain it to you.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-10-2010, 06:56 PM   #464
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I'm saying you are driven by economics and politics first, and then you find the science. That's the bullshit way to do this, it's why most of your "scientist" have been found faulty as well. And how does the argument against the IPCC work for science outside the IPCC, that doesn't make any sense what so ever. You're losing it Oscar.
I think you are downplaying the IPCC too much and the jury is still out on who's faulty. To throw the IPCC under the bus is a big deal in this debate considering they try and represent a world consensus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But it does work and is cost efficient for certain parts of the planet(like YOUR article said), just like wind is for other parts of the planet, you always choose to ignore that fact. If you actually address this point this time, you win a prize.
Tick, tick, tick. Time is ticking as more fossil fuels are being used. In order to stop CO2 from increasing (according to alarmist guys like Hansen from NASA) we would need to shut down coal plants.

Hansen Asks England to Shut Down its Coal Plants | Planetizen

Quote:
NASA's James Hansen takes his global warming message to England, telling them in no uncertain terms that they must stop their reliance on coal-derived electricity. He dismisses 'clean coal' and even 'carbon caps' if coal plants continue to operate.

"Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet", writes James Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "He was the first scientist to warn the US Congress of the dangers of climate change."

"The climate is nearing tipping points. If we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades, we will see effects that are irreversible."

"The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species.

If we cut off the (world's) largest source of carbon dioxide - coal - it will be practical to bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm, lower still if we improve agricultural and forestry practices, increasing carbon storage in trees and soil.

The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order.

Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world's oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretence that they are working on "clean coal" or that they will build power plants that are "capture-ready" in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants."
So how is solar and wind going to replace coal without doing serious damage to growth? Even Barack Obama needs growth to win an election in 2012.

You've already stated that environmentalists use alarmism to get lazy people to move their asses on new technologies and that you think it will only be expensive at the beginning and it will then become cheaper.

I have addressed the question and even asked you another question in response. I will ask again:

Is this about stopping catastrophic climate change induced by man or is this about energy independence? There are two issues brought up in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You've used it twice now, I'm not quite sure you know the definition of 'facetious' because you're using it wrong.
You're arguments look more like jokes and jabs than actually adding to the debate. You keep ignoring the big picture which does not support wind and solar being just a temporarily expensive alternative to fossil fuels. Currently it is so expensive we would go backwards in development if we shut down fossil fuels and we would prevent 3rd world countries from using fossil fuels to develop their countries. In order to get them to develop CO2 HAS TO INCREASE until some miraculous technology appears. You can fund research without cap and trade and it would be cheaper too. Direct funding would also avoid a boom bust scenario from cap and trade as people invest in green companies despite a lack of good products and a panic as many of those companies will fail just like the dot.com boom/bust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
This is reason 1,256 why no one can take you seriously in here.
You obviously don't. It's not which comes first or after (politics and science). They both go hand in hand. The science by the IPCC eliminated the medieval warming period and when I saw that graph in university I was skeptical because of the historical record showing otherwise. When you guys talk about science it sounds as if you want some scientific elite to dictate economics and politics because we are too narrow-minded and science must come first. You have to look at ALL stakeholders because there are other options to adapting to climate change (natural or man-made) that can be better use of limited resources than cap and trade or shutting down coal and giving a tax-credit to unemployed workers. If you don't want to talk about economics and politics then just post more scientific articles and your beliefs on what will happen in future weather. No one is stopping you.

Considering how my Anthropology teacher was using the hockey stick graph I could easily have suspicions about politics coming before the science. Then you add Greenpeace founders openly saying that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
We've gone over the alarmism time and time again, you don't get it, I don't know how else to explain it to you.
Yes we have and we agreed to disagree. Energy independence is a different issue than racing to save the world from climate doom. Conflating the two issues to force the public into new technologies is not a efficient method IMHO. There are good reasons to switch over to new technologies when they are primetime (energy independence) but it looks more likely that it will take decades before some of the technologies I posted will be ready. Using natural gas domestically is also another interim option for the U.S., which will help in a worldwide recession. From some earlier comments on nuclear from Obama I'm hoping that the U.S. will be allowed to go ahead with more nuclear power plants because nuclear already is better than wind and solar as can be seen by the French experience.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:11 PM   #465
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Tick, tick, tick. Time is ticking as more fossil fuels are being used. In order to stop CO2 from increasing (according to alarmist guys like Hansen from NASA) we would need to shut down coal plants.

So how is solar and wind going to replace coal without doing serious damage to growth? Even Barack Obama needs growth to win an election in 2012.

You've already stated that environmentalists use alarmism to get lazy people to move their asses on new technologies and that you think it will only be expensive at the beginning and it will then become cheaper.

I have addressed the question and even asked you another question in response. I will ask again:
I knew you wouldn't address it


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Is this about stopping catastrophic climate change induced by man or is this about energy independence? There are two issues brought up in this thread.
Both... funny how things relate, eh?


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You're arguments look more like jokes and jabs than actually adding to the debate.
When you're dealing with some of the "science" you post you have to just laugh otherwise you'd cry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You keep ignoring the big picture which does not support wind and solar being just a temporarily expensive alternative to fossil fuels. Currently it is so expensive we would go backwards in development if we shut down fossil fuels and we would prevent 3rd world countries from using fossil fuels to develop their countries.
But as it's been pointed out to you time and time and time again, even by your own article, you're wrong. It IS cost and energy efficient in certain parts of the world. The more you ignore, the more ignorant you look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You obviously don't. It's not which comes first or after (politics and science). They both go hand in hand. The science by the IPCC eliminated the medieval warming period and when I saw that graph in university I was skeptical because of the historical record showing otherwise. When you guys talk about science it sounds as if you want some scientific elite to dictate economics and politics because we are too narrow-minded and science must come first. You have to look at ALL stakeholders because there are other options to adapting to climate change (natural or man-made) that can be better use of limited resources than cap and trade or shutting down coal and giving a tax-credit to unemployed workers. If you don't want to talk about economics and politics then just post more scientific articles and your beliefs on what will happen in future weather. No one is stopping you.

Considering how my Anthropology teacher was using the hockey stick graph I could easily have suspicions about politics coming before the science. Then you add Greenpeace founders openly saying that.
No, this is your problem, on an issue like this the science should be first, this is something you don't get... I'm sorry you didn't like your teacher and the hockey stick graph, but there's a whole other world of science out there.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com