The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Jive Turkey]

It's a shame there so much mostly irrational fear of nuclear

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

It's a shame there so much mostly irrational fear of nuclear

Agreed. That's the best hope that we have in many ways.

[Jive Turkey]

Man, I really need a proof reader.

[solemole]

If Florida submerges into the ocean, will America lose its manhood?

[the iron horse]

A new book that takes the opposite point of view:

In Global Warming We Trust

[Jive Turkey]

Would you care to inform us what you learned from that book?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

A new book that takes the opposite point of view:

In Global Warming We Trust

Do you have to bury your head in the sand to read it or did the author convey that point-of-view well enough that you the reader don't have to?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

A new book that takes the opposite point of view:

In Global Warming We Trust

What exactly is his view? Can you tell me anything about the author? I'm interested in picking it up but would like your input.

[Jive Turkey]

I have sneaking suspicion that might be one of those reference-a-book-instead-of-understanding-myself or haven't-read-it-yet style book recos

[Badyouken]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

A new book that takes the opposite point of view:

In Global Warming We Trust

[purpleoscar]

Lomborg: Obama should confront climate change fantasies

President Obama's new climate policies outlined Tuesday include both brilliant and useless ideas. The confusion stems from Obama's unwillingness to confront three climate fantasies:


•Renewables are a major part of the solution today. No, they are almost trivial. Today, the world gets 81% of its energy from fossil fuels – by 2035, in the most green scenario, we will still get 79% from fossil fuels. Wind and solar will increase from 0.8% to 3.2% -- impressive, but not what is going to matter.
•Biofuels should play a major part of the solution. No. For now, biofuels simply diverts food into cars, driving up food prices and starvation, while clearing forests for new fields emit more CO2 than biofuels save.
•Efficiency can cut emissions. No. While efficiency is good, studies show it has little climate impact, because its savings gets eaten up by more use. As your car gets more efficient, you drive it further, and the money you still save get used for other carbon-emitting activities.

But carefully implemented, Obama's plan also shows the way to the three climate truths.

Fracking is this decade's green solution. Obama recognizes gas as a "bridge fuel." Replacing dirtier coal, cheaper gas from fracking has cut up to 500 MT of the U.S. CO2 emissions. This is 10 times more than what renewables do, and while renewables cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars, fracking has saved the U.S. consumer $125 billion annually in cheaper energy prices. Fracking has local environmental issues, but these can all be addressed with good regulation. Moving the U.S. fracking miracle to the rest of the world will be the biggest source of CO2 reductions this decade, and simultaneously increase global welfare by allowing energy access to billions yet unserved.

Adaptation is smart, and Obama is right to stress it. Wet-lands, tidal barriers and subway caps could dramatically have reduced hurricane Sandy's impact, irrespective of how little global warming impacted the hurricane. There are many more, smart and cheap solutions here to real world problems.

Finally, we need innovation in long-term green energy, which the president suggests to fund with $7.9 billion for fiscal 2014. As long as green energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels, it will always remain a niche, subsidized by rich countries to feel good. But if innovation makes future green energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels everyone will switch. Just like the 30-year Energy Department research into fracking made cleaner gas cheaper than coal and produced a historic US CO2 reduction, twice that of the European Union/Kyoto reduction.

The final climate fantasy the president needs to confront is the idea that international negotiations can somehow bring about meaningful cuts. We've tried this for more than 20 years and failed and we will fail again in 2015 in Paris. More than 180 countries won't meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions from the fossil fuels that power their economic growth.

The president should instead ask the rest of the world to follow the U.S. lead on green innovation. Economic models show that this is by far the best, long-term climate policy. If we all invested far more to innovate down the cost of future green energy, we could outcompete fossil fuels faster and truly solve global warming.

[Badyouken]

Purpleoscar: does this mean that you now accept that something must be done, and that you have moved on to debating paths to a solution?

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Badyouken

Purpleoscar: does this mean that you now accept that something must be done, and that you have moved on to debating paths to a solution?

I look at the problem similarly to Lomborg but I don't believe a doubling or even a tripling of CO2 is a danger since it wasn't in the past. Th UN is utterly corrupt and cap and trade will do nothing. Climatologists are lying and hyping about the climate. We do have to move from fossil fuels eventually but other than investing in new technology (especially nuclear fusion) there has to be enough time for breakthroughs to make cheap enough power. Making people poor and preventing third world countries from developing their fossil fuel resources is criminal, especially when the scientific predictions have been woeful.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

when the scientific predictions have been woeful.

Except for the 3 on your side. They are the only honest scientists and they get everything right.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

Except for the 3 on your side. They are the only honest scientists and they get everything right.

When you have land based temperature readings and you compare it to satellites it should be similar but it's not because of the urban island heat effect. When you have predictions that are between 6 degrees max and 2 degress min and the actual temperature is lower than the min you can see there is something wrong with the predictions. Claiming consensus is a pointless argument that uses appeal to authority and peer pressure as argument instead of reason. It would be much more difficult for me to argue if the predictions were accurate and the logic and reason made sense. I don't want to believe that the medieval warming period didn't exist. When scientists predict global warming with their graphs but then insist climate change (including colder periods) is a part of the prediction it makes no sense.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

When you have land based temperature readings and you compare it to satellites it should be similar but it's not because of the urban island heat effect. When you have predictions that are between 6 degrees max and 2 degress min and the actual temperature is lower than the min you can see there is something wrong with the predictions. Claiming consensus is a pointless argument that uses appeal to authority and peer pressure as argument instead of reason. It would be much more difficult for me to argue if the predictions were accurate and the logic and reason made sense. I don't want to believe that the medieval warming period didn't exist. When scientists predict global warming with their graphs but then insist climate change (including colder periods) is a part of the prediction it makes no sense.

Well it makes no sense to YOU. You're someone who is anti-science that pretends to respect and understand science when it props up what you've already decided to believe.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

Well it makes no sense to YOU. You're someone who is anti-science that pretends to respect and understand science when it props up what you've already decided to believe.

It doesn't make sense to a lot of people for precisely the reasons I've laid out. Your criticism of anti-science could easily be levelled at someone trying to eliminate the medieval warming period in their graphs. The attempt to isolate skeptics and equate them to flat earthers is all about politics and trying to increase the source of revenue in the government via energy taxes. $$$, that what it's about. Anybody who's aware of geology knows that climate has changed naturally forever. Climate change is loaded terminology that asserts that if changes occur it must be man's fault. How is this different from 1984 "newspeak"?

[purpleoscar]

http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06...nt-of.html?m=1

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

The attempt to isolate skeptics and equate them to flat earthers is all about politics and trying to increase the source of revenue in the government via energy taxes. $$$, that what it's about.

So when do you think the first meeting was? You know the one where all(sorry most) scientists and politicians got together to hatch this scheme. Do you have a roundabout date, or at least the year?

[Badyouken]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

It doesn't make sense to a lot of people for precisely the reasons I've laid out. Your criticism of anti-science could easily be levelled at someone trying to eliminate the medieval warming period in their graphs. The attempt to isolate skeptics and equate them to flat earthers is all about politics and trying to increase the source of revenue in the government via energy taxes. $$$, that what it's about. Anybody who's aware of geology knows that climate has changed naturally forever. Climate change is loaded terminology that asserts that if changes occur it must be man's fault. How is this different from 1984 "newspeak"?