GreyWolf, you know you're posting on a message board where people frequently do get all hot under the collar about quantum mechanics vs. relativity, right? :PThere's nothing to debate, everything is at superposition and is actually a mango.
A mango?! It's a pink nerve-gas-farting dragon!! *Puffs out chest*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would guess the government found a permanent solution to all those petitions...
Where is yd anyway?
Weird -- I can't even get his user page to pop up.
Do you have scientific evidence that AGW isn't happening? I don't care about your opinion about anyone in this thread, because opinions aren't science. I'm specifically looking for scientific evidence that AGW isn't real.#1 - You are asking the WRONG question. AGW is a political construct in many ways.
Are you asking because you actually want to KNOW about the science...or because this is more political talk to slam a scientist or scientists because you don't hear what you want to hear?
AGW is a political item, if you want that answer, you should ask a politician. They'll have an answer either for or against it.
I'll take it gracefully and think that you really are asking about what evidence or lack of evidence we have in regards to climate change.
We have evidence things are happening to the atmosphere. There are hundreds of different things. It is not just a single aspect that can be narrowed down into one finite item.
Many of the things talked about politically (CO2 for example) have already been outdated for some while. Using CO2 for example...CO2 as a known entity in regards to atmospheric influence has been known for OVER A CENTURY. This is not some new, revolutionary idea. What is NOT known typically, is that even if the CO2 items are hypothetically resolved...there are actually several other gases and particulate in the atmosphere that may also act as catalysts for a future disaster. Much of this started around 50 years ago...and slowly the focus has been coming more into the forefront on how these are also impacting the environment and atmosphere around us.
In essence, it is recognized that when you put something out there that wasn't there before...it probably has some sort of impact...some more than others. Do we have evidence of Climate Change...yes..we have evidence.
What currently is in politics is a model. It is one branch of a branch of a branch...so to say. In this model...we all die. Period. That's the end.
As like the asteroid idea I put above...when it's first spotted...there's not a ton of information on it. The idea is being developed. As it comes closer, the evidence gets stronger and more powerful. When it is seen as inevitiable...well...if you delayed to that point...it's FAAAAR too late...your dead.
What you want to do, is plan for what is plausible before it becomes a reality. You don't want the fact that an asteroid is going to hit the earth by it actually hitting the earth by delaying action on it.
However, to categorize this all as the entire science of space is misleading.
The same goes for Climate Change. People want to focus on one specific thing, or a branch of a branch of a branch. So I think what you actually are trying to ask, I'd assume, is whether we have evidence of Climate Change, or Climate change caused by what Men do.
The answer to that, is yes, we do. From that observation and idea, we have formed hypothesis and in some instances, theories, of what is happening. There are also ideas of how to act in regards to those postulations, and what may be done to change the outcomes.
To say that it is all knowing and we know without a shadow of a doubt gives too much credit. To say that they are thus ignorant of the weaknesses inherent in the research of such a young field, is also likewise to give too much doubt about what the scientists know or understand.
There's a lot that we don't understand yet, and a lot that is still being formed.
For example, I've seen those who say that the reason the heat has gone up is because all the measurements are done in cities. That the industrialization has caused the measurement rise. Scientist know these problems, that is part of why at times I've helped in notating information from VERY rural areas of the US. These are sites that actually are NOT in industrialized areas, but can be very applicable to understanding the dynamics of what is occurring in our environment.
It would be a very bad thing if ONLY information from industrialized areas were being utilized. This is obvious to scientists. How it is actually done is very RARELY brought up though. When talking about Climate Change, there are literally dozens of theories. When one wants to talk about them...there is really no way to say ALL of them...as many of them talk about different items...but are equally valid as theories. CO2 is currently a hot one politically, but as I said...much of that information has already been outdated for years. For MANY of them however, the same things that curb CO2 emissions, would also curb other emissions and pollutants.
It is constantly changing, faster now days than before. In the 90s I might have been able to give you a run down of all the advances that had occurred in the past 6 months. Now days, I'd be hard pressed. The changes in theory, hypothesis, and study is occurring at an astronomical rate these days. IN some ways (though many would say they are minute changes to those viewing it from the outside), it is changing so fast that it's hard to keep up. Conferences seem to be a good way to keep abreast of the major change ups...but even then...it's a vastly rapidly evolving field of study and research.
To make a categorical statement right now is hard to do because what may be on the forefront today, may actually be tomorrow's old news in the science of it. Politically things move much slower...but in science it is moving at a very FAST pace currently.
If there's one advantage to the political hotspot, is that people seem to be more interested in the field and where you might have only had one or two people 20 years ago looking at a certain theoretical branch, you now might have dozens or even hundreds! It's a very exciting time, but also very fast paced.
So, in short, I can't answer your question as it's best to be asked of politicians.
However, if my guess of what you are asking in regards to science and man's influence towards the environment is correct...than the simple answer is yes, it is there...but overall it can be much more complex to answer.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are trying to cram politics as science and vice versa. While connected...you are asking a political question in regards to science.
No.
I'm asking you to stop basing your position on things which are blatantly false.
Your statement;
"It is still not even a solid theory (despite people painting it as that), something ANY REAL scientist in the field will acknowledge."
Is not science. Nor politics. Nor remotely based in reality. It is nonsense.
James Hansen is a 'real scientist' in the field. He has said, "The evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming."
See, this is reality. I provided proof showing that your statement is false. That's not "trying to cram politics". That's trying to get you to acknowledge reality.
Do you have scientific evidence that AGW isn't happening? I don't care about your opinion about anyone in this thread, because opinions aren't science. I'm specifically looking for scientific evidence that AGW isn't real.#1 - You are asking the WRONG question. AGW is a political construct in many ways.
So, in short, I can't answer your question as it's best to be asked of politicians.
However, if my guess of what you are asking in regards to science and man's influence towards the environment is correct...than the simple answer is yes, it is there...but overall it can be much more complex to answer.
Reread my question, did I ask for political evidence, or scientific evidence?
Is this a long winded way of saying "No, I don't have any evidence against AGW?"
You are trying to cram politics as science and vice versa. While connected...you are asking a political question in regards to science.No.
I'm asking you to stop basing your position on things which are blatantly false.
Your statement;
"It is still not even a solid theory (despite people painting it as that), something ANY REAL scientist in the field will acknowledge."Is not science. Nor politics. Nor remotely based in reality. It is nonsense.
James Hansen is a 'real scientist' in the field. He has said, "The evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming."
See, this is reality. I provided proof showing that your statement is false. That's not "trying to cram politics". That's trying to get you to acknowledge reality.
Final defense...
#1 - You posted a POLITICAL magazine as your evidence. I also don't have access to Newsweek.
#2 - If he referred to it as CLIMATE Change, that actually invalidates your entire point when you try to force that CC and AGW are one and the same, as he is referring to Climate Change and not your political definitions.
#3 - If you really knew James Hansen, you'd know he agrees with me with many things, including to the point of not believing what has happened in Paris will do anything or be effective (though compared to what he's stated about it, I'm actually being excessively politically polite).
#4- That said, you should ALSO know that Hansen these days (though early on he was heavily involved with the actual science) he is heavily involved with politics. Even if we are in agreement on many things...I should note that he also has a heavy political involvement these days. However, many of his studies are instrumental in understanding Climate Change as it occurs around us.
Do you have scientific evidence that AGW isn't happening? I don't care about your opinion about anyone in this thread, because opinions aren't science. I'm specifically looking for scientific evidence that AGW isn't real.#1 - You are asking the WRONG question. AGW is a political construct in many ways.
So, in short, I can't answer your question as it's best to be asked of politicians.
However, if my guess of what you are asking in regards to science and man's influence towards the environment is correct...than the simple answer is yes, it is there...but overall it can be much more complex to answer.
Reread my question, did I ask for political evidence, or scientific evidence?
Is this a long winded way of saying "No, I don't have any evidence against AGW?"
You are actually asking about AGW...ask a politician.
If you have a SCIENCE question, then I'll give you answers.
I think you are trying to put words into my mouth I did NOT say or have not thought about saying. I'm not here to discuss your Politics...but how people are blaming scientists for what's going on in politics, instead of the politicians where it belongs. I am discussing science, why in the world are you trying to get me to take some sort of position on your political agenda?
I would suppose (and that's just supposition) it's because you want to win some sort of political points in the thread instead of actually trying to find out about the science of it or how it applies.
Edit just in case one found my last part offensive: You may not realize (and perhaps the entire thread does not) just HOW MANY insults are tossed at those in the field, and in the science of it in this thread...many of those who probably even think they are defending them (when in truth all they are doing is insulting their intelligence or procedures or words).
I think the problem is people confuse the politics with the science, as is obvious when one wants to peg a political position in regards to a scientific field.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a result of the account being closed.Where is yd anyway?Weird -- I can't even get his user page to pop up.
Sad. I miss that guy.
Do you have scientific evidence that AGW isn't happening? I don't care about your opinion about anyone in this thread, because opinions aren't science. I'm specifically looking for scientific evidence that AGW isn't real.#1 - You are asking the WRONG question. AGW is a political construct in many ways.
So, in short, I can't answer your question as it's best to be asked of politicians.
However, if my guess of what you are asking in regards to science and man's influence towards the environment is correct...than the simple answer is yes, it is there...but overall it can be much more complex to answer.
Reread my question, did I ask for political evidence, or scientific evidence?
Is this a long winded way of saying "No, I don't have any evidence against AGW?"
You are actually asking about AGW...ask a politician.
If you have a SCIENCE question, then I'll give you answers.
I think you are trying to put words into my mouth I did NOT say or have not thought about saying. I'm not here to discuss your Politics...but how people are blaming scientists for what's going on in politics, instead of the politicians where it belongs. I am discussing science, why in the world are you trying to get me to take some sort of position on your political agenda?
I would suppose (and that's just supposition) it's because you want to win some sort of political points in the thread instead of actually trying to find out about the science of it or how it applies.
Edit just in case one found my last part offensive: You may not realize (and perhaps the entire thread does not) just HOW MANY insults are tossed at those in the field, and in the science of it in this thread...many of those who probably even think they are defending them (when in truth all they are doing is insulting their intelligence or procedures or words).
I think the problem is people confuse the politics with...
You've repeatedly made the claim that AGW isn't scientific. I'm asking for scientific proof that backs up that claim.
You made a claim. Back it up.
If you can't, that means you aren't approaching this scientifically, but rather as a politician.
For example, if I were to make the claim that Intelligent Design isn't scientific, I would provide evidence how it lacks any sort of scientific process, can't be used to make predictions, isn't based on observations, etc, etc. I could provide links to these details as well.
Can you do that for AGW?
You've repeatedly made the claim that AGW isn't scientific. I'm asking for scientific proof that backs up that claim.
You made a claim. Back it up.
If you can't, that means you aren't approaching this scientifically, but rather as a politician.
For example, if I were to make the claim that Intelligent Design isn't scientific, I would provide evidence how it lacks any sort of scientific process, can't be used to make predictions, isn't based on observations, etc, etc. I could provide links to these details as well.
Can you do that for AGW?
Just to chip in here, the decision in the Dover Pandas trial provides a good object lesson in how to address that particular dispute. From the section entitled "4. Whether ID is Science":
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
And further:
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
... supported, of course, by appropriate citations from the court record.
But none of that's relevant to what he's saying. He's saying that AGW is a political term that's not the same as the real scientific thing we're talking about and therefore he can't respond in a scientific fashion to questions about AGW. (Or at least I think that's what he's saying. Feel free to correct me. No offense intended.) It seems like a stupid distinction to draw to me, but I think that kind of thing is what this whole argument is about.
Yes, and that's exactly why the Dover citation is relevant.
Faced with the question "Is Intelligent Design science?" Judge Jones provided a rubric to distinguish science from non-science and showed by evidence and analysis which group ID fell into.
If GWL wishes to claim that "climate change" is science, but "anthropomorphic global warming" is not (and is merely political), then presumably he has a rubric by which he distinguishes the two, and some evidence he can present showing how those two terms fall on opposite sides of the rubric.
The parallel's pretty exact, with the minor emendation that Jones was up to the challenge, and I don't believe GWL will be.
I don't think it's the same argument, because AGW (in my understanding of what GWL is saying) isn't pretending to be science like ID is.
Well, if that were true, and GWL could demonstrate that, that would go a long way to raising his credibility on this issue.
There's no theory or set of hypotheses which is AGW as distinct from climate change or anything else.
.... which, in turn, argues that saying "climate change is science" but "AGW is political" is more than a little disingenuous.
It's just that AGW is a term used when talking about climate change from a political point of view.
[Citation needed.]
Mind you, I think that's semantics at best and pure b+++!*&* at worst.There are probably ways to disprove it - the simplest being to cite actual scientific papers using the term AGW, thus showing that it's not merely used in a political sense.
There almost certainly are. But it's not my job to disprove any piece of gaudy nonsense that comes down the pike. If GWL wants us to value his opinion, he needs to start by showing that his opinion is worth valuing, which means he needs to show evidence supporting his (ahem) idiosyncratic viewpoint.
Otherwise we're in the position of my claiming that Sedna is teapot-shaped, and that there's a high-level conspiracy among NASA scientists to keep us from seeing the photographs snapped by Elvis in his recent trip among the trans-Neptunian solar system -- and it's up to you to do the work to disprove me.
And, no, I'm not suggesting that GWL's statement is equivalent to my Sedna conspiracy. I'm not sure it rises to that level. At least we know that NASA (and Sedna) exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does this thread still exist?
I feel like I asked this already like 500 posts ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But none of that's relevant to what he's saying. He's saying that AGW is a political term that's not the same as the real scientific thing we're talking about and therefore he can't respond in a scientific fashion to questions about AGW. (Or at least I think that's what he's saying. Feel free to correct me. No offense intended.) It seems like a stupid distinction to draw to me, but I think that kind of thing is what this whole argument is about.Yes, and that's exactly why the Dover citation is relevant.
Faced with the question "Is Intelligent Design science?" Judge Jones provided a rubric to distinguish science from non-science and showed by evidence and analysis which group ID fell into.
If GWL wishes to claim that "climate change" is science, but "anthropomorphic global warming" is not (and is merely political), then presumably he has a rubric by which he distinguishes the two, and some evidence he can present showing how those two terms fall on opposite sides of the rubric.
The parallel's pretty exact, with the minor emendation that Jones was up to the challenge, and I don't believe GWL will be.
I don't think it's the same argument, because AGW (in my understanding of what GWL is saying) isn't pretending to be science like ID is. There's no theory or set of hypotheses which is AGW as distinct from climate change or anything else. It's just that AGW is a term used when talking about climate change from a political point of view.
Mind you, I think that's semantics at best and pure b#+~+!*~ at worst.
There are probably ways to disprove it - the simplest being to cite actual scientific papers using the term AGW, thus showing that it's not merely used in a political sense.
GWL is the one who made a claim, that the term AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not science, and that everyone who uses it, or refers to it, is doing so out of pure politics. I'm willing to accept his point if he can do the scientific thing, and back up his claim.
It's my contention, that if you can't back up your claim... you know... with science, then you are probably playing the political game as much as anyone else.
I'm also tired of being talk down to. So yes, I am going to point out when someone is being needlessly pedantic and guilty of doing the exact thing they're blaming others of doing.
GWL is the one who made a claim, that the term AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not science, and that everyone who uses it, or refers to it, is doing so out of pure politics. I'm willing to accept his point if he can do the scientific thing, and back up his claim.
It's my contention, that if you can't back up your claim... you know... with science, then you are probably playing the political game as much as anyone else.
I'm also tired of being talk down to. So yes, I am going to point out when someone is being needlessly pedantic and guilty of doing the exact thing they're blaming others of doing.
This is a basic principle of Science. What do you think IPCC means? Or are you actually proposing IPCC should be IPAGW?
The CC stands for Climate Change...
Furthermore, as I said before, stop saying that I said things I have NOT stated. I have said, if Global Warming is used (and it is still used in science) it needs to be specific and directive. It is NOT a general term like it is used in politics and the media. Global Warming is in regards to specific things...not a general term in replacement of Climate Change.
The idea that AGW and Global Warming are interchangeable with Climate Change is a myth and one that is particularly annoying (but it IS used interchangeably in politics...dead give away of whether the discussion is political or not). They are TWO different things...and though politicians and politics refer to it commonly as AGW...what is really being dealt with is one of the hypothesis dealing with Climate Change.
Anyways, wrote a whole slew of stuff and then realized...why am I writing this? It's obvious at this point it's a political debate rather than scientific (only choice A or B...nothing else...and it's all about the debate rather than the discussion...heck...you have someone connected to the field and the point is to try to discredit rather than discuss...that's a key sign there it has NOTHING to do with the science).
If you want to learn about the actual science...what I've discussed would probably be covered in the first chapter or two of the basic manuals. Otherwise...you guys can continue.
I was drawn here because of insults tossed towards the scientists from both side A and B on this topic...and probably took it too personally. I'm not terribly into the politics...and as this is a political thread...well...that probably speaks for itself.
IF you want to call the IPCC or consider the IPCC as the IPAGW from now on...be my guest. If anyone ever actually wants to discuss SCIENCE sometime...especially in regards to this, or some other aspect I have been involved in...I'm around. For now though, it's best if I bug out of the political debate as I have no interest in taking side A or B on this...merely trying to say...you can blame politicians...but leave the scientists out of this. This is your political fight...and from what I see has very little to do with the scientists in the actual field of Climate change.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But none of that's relevant to what he's saying. He's saying that AGW is a political term that's not the same as the real scientific thing we're talking about and therefore he can't respond in a scientific fashion to questions about AGW. (Or at least I think that's what he's saying. Feel free to correct me. No offense intended.) It seems like a stupid distinction to draw to me, but I think that kind of thing is what this whole argument is about.
I think you are giving him entirely too much credit.
GWL makes clearly false statements (e.g. '1% of nations or less have kept their GHG reduction targets', 'China has repeatedly broken its climate agreements', 'all real scientists in the field agree that climate change is not a solid theory', et cetera).
The babbling about 'politics vs science' only comes in to play to obfuscate his inability to substantiate these false claims. 'Newsweek is politics not science'... therefor their interview of a real scientist in the field saying that the science IS solid 'does not count'. Of course, there is no such thing as a 'scientific interview', so such sophistry means that any and all instances of scientists contradicting his position would be invalidated. That's not a rationale position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GWL is the one who made a claim, that the term AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not science, and that everyone who uses it, or refers to it, is doing so out of pure politics. I'm willing to accept his point if he can do the scientific thing, and back up his claim.
It's my contention, that if you can't back up your claim... you know... with science, then you are probably playing the political game as much as anyone else.
I'm also tired of being talk down to. So yes, I am going to point out when someone is being needlessly pedantic and guilty of doing the exact thing they're blaming others of doing.
This is a basic principle of Science. What do you think IPCC means? Or are you actually proposing IPCC should be IPAGW?
The CC stands for Climate Change...
Furthermore, as I said before, stop saying that I said things I have NOT stated. I have said, if Global Warming is used (and it is still used in science) it needs to be specific and directive. It is NOT a general term like it is used in politics and the media. Global Warming is in regards to specific things...not a general term in replacement of Climate Change.
The idea that AGW and Global Warming are interchangeable with Climate Change is a myth and one that is particularly annoying (but it IS used interchangeably in politics...dead give away of whether the discussion is political or not). They are TWO different things...and though politicians and politics refer to it commonly as AGW...what is really being dealt with is one of the hypothesis dealing with Climate Change.
Anyways, wrote a whole slew of stuff and then realized...why am I writing this? It's obvious at this point it's a political debate rather than scientific (only choice A or B...nothing else...and it's all about the debate rather than the discussion...heck...you have someone connected to the field and the point is to try to discredit rather than discuss...that's a key sign there it has NOTHING to do with the science).
If you want...
Is the best, and most conclusive, evidence you have the name of the IPCC? You can't do better than that?
The funny thing is you are making statements about politics and politicians and their usage of the terms, and those statements are wrong. No one in politics uses Global Warming, or AGW. That dropped out of favor in political discussions in the late 90's.
Al Gore uses the term Climate Change now.
Google search "obama global warming" the first 3 hits all say "climate change" instead
In fact, if you bothered to actually engage me in a discussion, instead of trying to tar me as a stupid, non-scientific idiot, I would tell you I don't see the two terms as interchangeable. I personally prefer AGW for a discussion like this, but only precisely because of the Anthropogenic portion of the term. I like having the word "human caused" because the preponderance of evidence suggests it is human caused and the real debate should move past that point.
So, please, continue to insist that people using the term "climate change" do so for purely scientific reasons, while only people using "global warming" are doing so for political reasons.
Also note, how I backed up what I said with supporting evidence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that we already had this exact discussion about 600 posts ago. CBDunkerson already disproved this claim that AGW is only used by politicians by pointing to google search terms and Scott Betts posted a link of published science journals that use Global Warming.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2se0s&page=9?Conspiracy-theories-surroundin g-human#438
James Hansen was brought out as a leading climate change scientist so I was curious. Yes unlike many others he truly IS a climate scientist studying the exact thing we are discussing. So I feel his opinions should be valued here.
I haven't read his stuff extensively yet... but the cliff notes are interesting. He does NOT believe CO2 is responsible for Global Warming, instead blaming Methane. He does support lowering emissions because lets face it that can only help. But of course that means while man certainly isn't helping Global Warming yet he certainly isn't the main cause either.
My opinion may change as I read more of his work, but this guy sounds a lot smarter than us forum arguers.
I think we should begin a series of steps down from fossil fuels. This may mean deregulating the green energy industry because many of the reasons we can't go strongly toward green energy is because regulation makes such a move illegal. But the change should be gradual, because jobs are more important than emission reductions. Let the green energy field explode and absorb the workers being displaced from traditional power. And once the green power is big enough ONLY then shut down fossil fuel completely.
Also we should use trade as a lever to force other countries to follow our lead, because it won't matter if we change and the world doesn't.
Also we should use trade as a lever to force other countries to follow our lead, because it won't matter if we change and the world doesn't.
Depends on how we change. If we throw billions into research and come up with cold fusion or some carbon sucking algae that make industrial grade diamonds they'll come right along.
|
|
I haven't read his stuff extensively yet... but the cliff notes are interesting. He does NOT believe CO2 is responsible for Global Warming, instead blaming Methane. He does support lowering emissions because lets face it that can only help. But of course that means while man certainly isn't helping Global Warming yet he certainly isn't the main cause either.
As thejeff said, something has gone awry in your understanding of Hansen's position. He very much does believe that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause... he's been making that case for decades.
That said, I actually disagree with Hansen on some of his more political/activist positions. For example, he has previously said that we must move heavily into nuclear power to stop global warming... while I consider that only one possible (and not the best) option. Likewise, he insisted that Keystone XL approval would destroy any chance of averting climate catastrophe, while I considered it a largely symbolic fight over a fairly small amount of carbon. Most recently he has derided the Paris agreement as largely useless, while I think it was a huge first step in finally getting every nation on the planet to agree that we should reduce CO2 emissions.
Great scientist... so-so activist.
I think we should begin a series of steps down from fossil fuels.
Already under way. The heart of the Paris agreement is basically that every five years all the signatories (i.e. all currently existing nations) will evaluate and improve their emission reduction targets.
But the change should be gradual, because jobs are more important than emission reductions. Let the green energy field explode and absorb the workers being displaced from traditional power. And once the green power is big enough ONLY then shut down fossil fuel completely.
Fossil fuel power employment has been plummeting for decades. For example, the US coal industry is now so automated that there are already more people working in solar power than coal... despite coal still being the biggest electricity source and solar one of the smallest.
That said, development of new coal power plants has been at or near zero for several years now... while development of renewable power now accounts for the majority of new power. Hence the large renewable work-force... it takes more people to build new facilities than to operate old/dying ones. If there continue to be no new coal plants built, and some shutting down prior to 'end of life' to minimize capital losses, then coal use (in the US) will be virtually non-existent in 30 years. This same track is playing out around the world with various countries ahead/behind the US.
Also we should use trade as a lever to force other countries to follow our lead, because it won't matter if we change and the world doesn't.
Again, Paris. There are 195 recognized nations on the planet (196 if you count Taiwan separately from China). ALL of them signed on to the COP21 agreement. Of those, more than 180 had already submitted emission reduction plans and the remainder (who mostly have very low emissions to begin with) will do so soon.
Most of the world was actually ahead of the US on this. The big exceptions were China, until Obama's deal with them last year, and India. China is now on track to reduce emissions. India has further to go, but should get there.
Why does this thread still exist?
I feel like I asked this already like 500 posts ago.
The world needs an echo chamber.
I got the CO2 vs methane thing from his web page... But I admit I just assumed that meant he didn't think man was a major contributor -I stand corrected.
It's good to know the world is on the right path then.
As for regulations. Locally there is a law saying a minimum of some small percentage must be green energy... Which in the business world means that amount and exactly that amount will be green, no more. Also people who want green energy at their home can't sell it back or the power company sues claiming they are a power company costing the homeowner everything in fines. And lastly environmental regulation makes certain forms of green energy illegal by killing birds or water life.
It isn't a conservative thing it is a business thing. If you own a company selling 100 units of energy to the state as a monopoly and suddenly new regulation forces you to give away a portion of that monopoly then you will do literally the least you can while complying with law, anything else is bad business. Even if the green company can supply far more than it does the monopoly rules allow they can force you to just dump massive amounts of unused energy.
|
|
Locally there is a law saying a minimum of some small percentage must be green energy... Which in the business world means that amount and exactly that amount will be green, no more.
Actually, pretty much every state in the US which has set significant renewable energy percentage targets (e.g. California, Texas, Iowa, New Jersey) has blown right past them in short order. Ditto various cities. Basically, it turns out that once they make an effort to deploy renewable energy it usually ends up being a lot easier / less costly than expected... in large part because costs are dropping so fast that the prices when they actually build things are >20% below what they were a few years earlier during the planning stage.
Also people who want green energy at their home can't sell it back or the power company sues claiming they are a power company costing the homeowner everything in fines.
You may be thinking of something like the Florida regulations... which require that anyone 'selling' electricity be a registered utility company. So, for example, a Florida homeowner could have solar panels on their roof and use the electricity themselves. However, they can't sell any of it back to the power grid or to their neighbors unless they become a utility company... which is complicated, expensive, and overall ridiculous for a homeowner to contemplate. It would actually be the state suing the 'unregulated utility', rather than power companies, but the effect is the same. This has significantly slowed the spread of solar power in the 'sunshine state'. Republican politicians have been holding the line on keeping those regulations in place (because everyone knows how the GOP loves regulations), but polls show that a solid majority of GOP voters are against them. The 'Green Tea Coalition' (i.e. greens and tea party, how's that for strange bedfellows) is pushing for a ballot vote on a Florida constitutional amendment to remove the restrictions next year.
And lastly environmental regulation makes certain forms of green energy illegal by killing birds or water life.
There are siting restrictions on wind farms due to birds and hydro-power due to fish and other environmental concerns... but that's no different than any other kind of power plant. Not many coal plants in residential areas for instance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without rehashing prior discussion I would like to point out that the very thing I was arguing for in November has been adopted by Australia's progressive government.
Does Australia's retreat from climate change research signal a global trend?
Only in the sense that they've adopted exactly the opposite of what you recommended. Instead of arguing about whether or not climate change is real (hint: it is), and whether not humans have contributed to it (hint: they have), and whether or not we can establish this to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty (hint: we already have done), they've basically drawn a line under that and moved on to the question of "how can we fix it?"
From your link:
Climate change is proven and so requires no further research... Going forward, [Australia] will instead focus on climate change mitigation, adaptation, and commercial ventures.
This is completely appropriate. Similarly, I don't expect much funding from the Department of Transportation into questions of whether powered heavier-than-air flight is possible, from DARPA into questions of whether it's possible to network two computers together, from the National Institutes of Health into questions of whether bacteria can develop penicillin resistance.
Now, there's certainly room for further measurement and modeling as part of a project focused on climate change mitigation. But just building models to see whether or not climate has changed is no longer needed.
Instead we should be focusing our efforts on improving efficiencies across the entire energy sector.
Oh, and you were so close, too. No, we should focus our efforts on mitigating climate change, on adapting to climate change, and on making those projects commercially viable. You know, like the Aussies actually said in the article you linked to. If that happens to improve efficiencies as well, that's good.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, like the Aussies actually said in the article you linked to. If that happens to improve efficiencies as well, that's good.
What the article says is not settled. Just because some scientists CLAIM they know what is in the article linked two posts up doesn't mean they REALLY know. In fact, only 97% of scientists believe that that article exists at all! Maybe I'm just naturally skeptic about unproven claims about the contents of an article that is right in front of me. I suspect Quark_Blast didn't really link to an article at all: the alleged article is really just a myth propagated by the mainstream media and the job-killing socialist left.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I... even my sarcasm limit has been exceeded.
I am now a convert to Last Thursdayism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without rehashing prior discussion I would like to point out that the very thing I was arguing for in November has been adopted by Australia's progressive government.
Does Australia's retreat from climate change research signal a global trend?
By the gods and demons of the Hyborian Age I hope so!!
We are currently wasting a large portion of our creative thinking trying to model a chaotic system. By definition it is a Sisyphean task.
Instead we should be focusing our efforts on improving efficiencies across the entire energy sector. Those that are most efficient will gain shares in the global energy budget. Those that suck will shrink to obsolescence. And in general, those that suck puke the most greenhouse gases. Win-win!
Why would anyone, who doesn't have money to lose, argue against that approach?
How will you know what to prepare for if you don't have a model of what will most likely happen?
How will you know what to prepare for if you don't have a model of what will most likely happen?Without rehashing prior discussion I would like to point out that the very thing I was arguing for in November has been adopted by Australia's progressive government.
Does Australia's retreat from climate change research signal a global trend?
By the gods and demons of the Hyborian Age I hope so!!
We are currently wasting a large portion of our creative thinking trying to model a chaotic system. By definition it is a Sisyphean task.
Instead we should be focusing our efforts on improving efficiencies across the entire energy sector. Those that are most efficient will gain shares in the global energy budget. Those that suck will shrink to obsolescence. And in general, those that suck puke the most greenhouse gases. Win-win!
Why would anyone, who doesn't have money to lose, argue against that approach?
How will you know you've modeled an actual future when chaotic systems depend sensitively on initial conditions and the initial conditions for your model are known to lack specificity/accuracy?
All models do.
As I've said before, work on improving efficiency in the "extraction", processing, and use of energy sources. Focusing on that will get better results than decisions based on any climate model. Focusing on that will get better results than any decisions based on direct mitigation of climate change.
You think you can get the Chinese to cut their current standard of living in half? The Indians too? You think you can get Brazil and Russia to tag along too? You think you can get the Western world to cut their current standard of living by 80%? You think you can get the remainder of nations in the world to stay where they are at in terms of energy consumption?...
Here's a simple question you can't answer without a model...
How fast do we need to improve things?
Do we have 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 1 year?
Models are always improving as we get more data. The information they give us is useful to the things you're saying are problems. It also matters in what kinds of mitigation we're going to employ.
You seem to be conflating part of the issue. Just because I think models are useful, doesn't mean I think that's the ONLY thing we should do. The model gives us a picture of what things will probably look like. That helps us understand what kinds of mitigation and adaptation we need to research. What you're asking for is good, but it isn't mutually exclusive. We need both.
Also, the amount of money spent on climate research and modeling isn't that vast in the grand scheme of things.
In addition, once we start putting in changes to efficiency, how will we know what effect they are having? By studying the climate and modeling the changes. This is how we'll know what is working, what isn't, and what's giving us the biggest return for our money.
You keep approaching this as if it's a "or" consideration. Rather we should be doing both.
If you want to argue about how the government should spend it's budget, maybe target something that actually is wasteful and we see little return on... like Congress buying tanks that the Pentagon says it doesn't need.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's pretend for a second that global climate change is the result of CO2 levels and not the sun. Let's go further and just for funsies say CO2 levels are primarily due to human activities.
Accept basic and indisputable facts... ok, ok, I'm with you so far.
The other fun part, how about immediately throwing out all the computer models (none of them have predictive value anyway)
Climate models do have predictive value. Heck, Arrhenius's simple mathematical model from 1896 is still valid.
and realize that correlation does not prove causation.
Sloganeering does not prove inaccuracy... but it's a decent predictive indicator.
The other fun part is in the 70's our climate scientists were warning of the impending ice age.....
In the 70s a minority of climate scientists were warning of an impending ice age. Today a minority of climate scientists are warning of an impending ice age.
You can always find a few people who are wrong.