Return to the Fruit & Orchards Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
climate change continued

Posted by harvestman 6 (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 10, 13 at 8:47

Andrew, these appear to be my people for advice on matters of environmental science- the best of the best in the science world, consistently opposed by the corporate funded climate "skeptics".

How many skeptics have won a Nobel prize, or even published research in pier reviewed journals?

If you don't believe that the world science academic community is more corrupt than the corporate world that includes big energy (and nuclear energy) it would seem prudent to take their positions seriously on energy issues.

Here is a link that might be useful: union of concerned scientist


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: climate change continued

I understand that fruit trees are affected by climate, but this seems pretty off topic and controversial. Also, Obama won a Nobel prize, so...


 o
RE: climate change continued

It is the continuation of a discussion that began 152 comments ago, but I agree it is a bit off topic, however, no one need participate and clearly this is a topic of particular interest to fruit growers or there wouldn't be all this response.

The peace prize is well known to be a political decision for obvious reasons- science prizes,not so much. Compared to Bush, Obama pretty much seemed like the Prince of Peace to much of the world at the time.

What international prize for scientific achievement do you refer to as the gold standard? And what universities?

Glib dismissals are real easy but not usually of much substance.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I don't care to argue one way or the other. My point is that it is a pretty major topic that seems a lot bigger than "fruit trees". A lot of people have extreme opinions one way or the other. Bringing it up here is less likely to produce any meaningful resolution than it is to generate heated arguments and insults. We might as well discuss whether or not God is responsible for the germination of a seed. Anyway, have at it.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Harvestman and all, what do you think about David Attenborough facts about climate change?

Background,

Attenborough had confessed to previously being sceptical about the belief that global warming is predominantly caused by humans. But now, he argued, the evidence of it was too overwhelming to ignore. He became sure of it when he saw graphs provided by climatologists that demonstrated the link between increasing temperatures and the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, with the growth in population and industrialisation:
"I was absolutely convinced this was no part of a normal climatic oscillation which the Earth has been going through and that it was something else."[1]
Throughout his television career, Attenborough had, by and large, purposely avoided specific references to the effect of humans on the ecology of the planet. He saw his role simply as a presenter of programmes on natural history. However, the final episode of The Living Planet (1984) had been devoted to man's own habitat and his destruction of others, and in later years, Attenborough started to become more outspoken about the subject. The three-part State of the Planet in 2000, and the last instalment of The Life of Mammals (2002), which dealt with the evolution of Homo sapiens and subsequent overpopulation, were explicit in this regard.
Attenborough acknowledged that the tone of the "Climate Chaos" programmes was more forthright than most of those in which he had previously appeared:
"It's true to say these programmes about climate change are different, in that previously I have made programmes about natural history, and now you could say I have an engaged stance. The first is about the fact that there is climate change and that it is human-induced. So I'm glad that the BBC wanted some clear statement of the evidence as to why these two things are the case."[2]
Although the two programmes represent Attenborough's personal take on global warming and the surrounding controversy, he backs up his arguments with findings from leading scientists and climatologists. The first instalment investigates the effects and probable causes of the phenomenon, and the likely outcome if things remain unchecked. The second looks at the future in more detail and discusses mitigating actions that can be taken. Computer graphics are used to demonstrate how the atmosphere is polluted by day-to-day activities that human beings take for granted.

Are We Changing Planet Earth?

"This is our planet: planet Earth. It contains an astonishing variety of landscapes and climates. Since life began, around 4,000 million years ago, it has gone through extraordinary changes in its climate and in the species that live on it. But now it seems that our planet is being transformed " not by natural events, but by the actions of one species: mankind."

David Attenborough's,

Effects,

Attenborough begins his by returning to his 1979 series, Life on Earth, and specifically his closing words: "…Man has an unprecedented control over the world and everything in it. And so, whether he likes it or not, what happens next is very largely up to him." He notes that when he spoke those words he could have had no idea that man might have unleashed forces that are now altering the Earth's climate. The naturalist highlights several meteorological and climatological catastrophes: Hurricane Katrina, the collapse of glaciers in Greenland, drought in the Amazon River, forest fires in Australia, and one of Europe's hottest summers (that caused 27,000 deaths). He wonders if, somehow, there is a connection between these events. Scientists all over the world are linking the changes in the Earth's weather to a global rise in temperatures. The actual figure is just 0.6°C since 1900, but this is only an average. For example, the Arctic has warmed by up to 3°C, and this threatens its whole ecosystem. A team has been surveying polar bears in the region for the last 25 years, and over that time, the animals have declined in number by a quarter. Each year the Arctic ice is also now melting three weeks earlier. The overall rate of glacier melt is accelerating: in southern Greenland, the amount of ice flowing into the sea has doubled in a decade, resulting in a rise of sea levels. This is exacerbated by the increase in temperatures, which causes oceans to expand. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the sea temperatures of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean were the highest ever recorded. In addition, the 2005 hurricane season was the worst ever. Scientists who have studied such severe weather warn that from now on hurricanes in the area will be more intense, more destructive and possibly more frequent. Also in 2005, the Amazon region suffered its worse drought in 60 years, decimating local fish populations. Six months later, trees have still not recovered. The abnormally warm seas in the Atlantic had disrupted the rainfall in the forest and for similar reasons, coral reefs are also at risk, leading to the phenomenon of coral bleaching.

Causes,

Attenborough points out that because of natural forces, the Earth's temperature has been fluctuating for millions of years, long before humans arrived. However, it is the additional carbon dioxide, leading to an increase in the greenhouse effect, which must also be taken into account. When fossil fuels are burnt, such as coal, fuel oil or natural gas, the carbon emissions combine with oxygen to further thicken the Earth's atmospheric 'blanket' and thus warm the planet. An analysis of ice cores can provide information from thousands of years ago. Comparisons of carbon dioxide levels show that those of today are far beyond anything seen in the past. The scientists interviewed are convinced that humans are responsible. we should not cut down trees too

The future,

Scientists cannot predict changes to the climate with much certainty" but they can anticipate the likelihood that they will occur. Attenborough visits the Met Office in Exeter to learn their conclusions. Their findings include several factors, and allow for natural climate change as well as man-made carbon dioxide emissions. A graph shows that up until around 1970, the variance in Earth's temperatures was largely due to inherent anomalies, but from then on there is a marked escalation, which can only be explained by human activity. A computer model reveals that, for example, the 2003 European heat wave " by present reckoning a 1 in 200 years event " will be something that occurs every other summer by 2040, and by 2080 would be considered to be cool weather. Attenborough is wholly persuaded:
"We're all involved in this: our whole way of life is structured around the burning of fossil fuels. I find it sobering to think that while I've been travelling the world, trying to record the complexity and beauty of our planet, that I too have been making my own contribution to global warming. As I recognised when I presented Life on Earth all those years ago, we are a flexible and innovative species and we have the capacity to adapt and modify our behaviour. Now we most certainly have to do so if we're to deal with climate change. It's the biggest challenge we have yet faced."
Can We Save Planet Earth?[edit]

Likely changes,

Attenborough starts the second programme by looking at potential future events, before warning that what happens over the next few years is crucial. A BBC weather forecast for the year 2050 shows that summer temperatures of 38°C for the UK are "par for the course". The probable range by which the planet will warm over the next century is between 1.4°C and 5.8°C. Or, says Attenborough, "to put it another way, the impact of global warming will be somewhere between severe and catastrophic." The naturalist is invited to watch a film that illustrates regional change over the next 100 years. A 2°C rise for the south of England, for example, may not seem to be much but that is not all there is to it. Rainfall is also predicted to be more intense and storms could be five times more frequent than they are at the moment. This makes extreme events, such as the 2004 Boscastle flood, much more likely. Current defences for severe wind or rain will shortly become inadequate. Even Hurricane Katrina, with the devastation it caused, is described as "not particularly powerful". In Australia, a new approach is needed to combat brush fires after the hottest year on record. If the Amazon tropical rainforest were to disappear, not only would an entire ecosystem vanish, but a valuable way of cooling the planet would go as well. Meanwhile, the glaciers continue to melt: one scientist reveals that an area the size of Texas has been lost over the last 20 years. Attenborough is told that a warming of 2°C is inevitable, as a consequence of our actions over the last 25 years, but whether or not we end up at 6°C is still very much within our control.

Domestic pollution,

Every year humans add 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and over half of it comes from their domestic activity. Attenborough introduces the Carbons, a fictional family occupying an average Western suburban house near a city. Their electrical requirements are supplied via fossil fuels. As Attenborough points out, the Carbons are not bad people, but as Westerners, they have one of the most energy-hungry lifestyles on the planet. They are a two-car household, and each vehicle emits 10 tons of CO2 over the course of a year. The power used to run the Carbons' home and all its comforts translates into a similar amount. Much of the family's plentiful food supply will have crossed continents by the time it reaches their kitchen, and will have added a tenth to their annual emissions. Yet more are produced by their refuse: buried in a landfill, it heats up as it decomposes and releases greenhouse gases. Mr Carbon's business trips by air contribute to the fastest growing source of CO2. The combined total of the Carbons' yearly air pollution is 45 tons.
Also shown are Mr and Mrs Tan, a fictional couple who live in an average Chinese suburb. At present, their energy usage is one seventh of that of the Carbons. However, this is set to change. As China becomes more industrialised, its emissions are set to overtake those in the West. As of 2006, the country is planning to build a large, coal-fired power plant every week for the next seven years.
Reducing emissions[edit]
The challenge is to freeze emissions at their current level.
: Household solutions,

Turning heating down by a few degrees
Turning off televisions and similar equipment instead of leaving them in 'standby'
Composting vegetable waste
Buying locally grown food to save on transporting it
Using energy-efficient lighting
Insulating homes properly
Using a gas cooker instead of an electric one
Driving more fuel-efficient cars
Using more public transportation
Tripling the world's nuclear power
Scaling up renewable energy, such as solar and wind power
Pumping back emissions titi below the sea bed
the world is waking up to climate change, and everyone has a part to play in halting it. If the Greenland ice cap were to melt, the sea would flood much of south-east Britain, including central London. It would take just a 5-metre rise to drown most of Florida and leave Miami 50 miles off shore. A similar deluge would wipe Bangladesh off the map. Worldwide, 150 million people could be displaced within 50 years.
"In the past, we didn't understand the effect of our actions. Unknowingly, we sowed the wind and now, literally, we are reaping the whirlwind. But we no longer have that excuse: now we do recognise the consequences of our behaviour. Now surely, we must act to reform it: individually and collectively; nationally and internationally" or we doom future generations to catastrophe."

David Attenborough,


 o
RE: climate change continued

Atomic power is never safe, ..should be replaced by Thermal energy.

From the words of wisdom, date, Monday 14th March, 2011, ...
3 day's after the disaster.

Here is a link that might be useful: Atomic engery not safe


 o
RE: climate change continued

Organique, I agree with everything you say except that if several of us fruit growers find the subject so entertaining there is no problem with the discussion within this community. How is it harmful to the forum- it certainly doesn't stop me from engaging in fruit tree related issues.

There must have been 25 different people engaged in the topic, most who are regulars here, and I was in the middle of a discussion with Andrew about nuclear energy that was cut off because interest ran beyond the capacity of a single topic, 150 comments!. So where is the harm?


 o
RE: climate change continued

I was just being a smart ass, or a dumb ass, whichever you prefer. Don't take me too seriously. I do think this topic is a little heavy for this forum. I really just came here because I wanted to see some pictures of your fruit trees! Anyway, the thread is all yours.


 o
RE: climate change continued

No problem at all.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Harvestman, I don't understand your first post. I am not an anthropogenic global warming denier. Entirely the opposite, actually. I completely endorse, on scientific grounds, the assertion that man is causing global warming, and that global warming has the potential to be catastrophic if we don't take steps to curb our emissions of CO2 immediately.

I'll respond to your comments in detail a little later. For now I include a link to a BBC Horizon documentary about radiation, health and public perceptions.

Here is a link that might be useful: BBC Horizon: Nuclear Nightmare (2006)


 o
RE: climate change continued

Here's some more scientists who don't believe the sky is falling:

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed." Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

Here is a link that might be useful: Here's over 1000 scientists who don't believe in AGW


 o
RE: climate change continued

I hate to bring up some bad news, but look at the Philippines's strong typhoon ever recorded and 10,000 lives lost. We just have to face the reality of CO2 buildups.


 o
RE: climate change continued

So here's a good indication that the Union of Concerned Scientists isn't actually a good source of information on the subject of the human health impact that followed the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/chernobyl-cancer-death-toll-0536.html

From the UCS website:

"The 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident is next Tuesday, April 26. Experts in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently revisited one of the nagging questions about Chernobyl’s health impact. They estimate that the number of excess cancer deaths -- deaths that would not have occurred under normal circumstances �" attributable to the radiation released by the accident will be approximately 25,000. That conclusion is more than six times higher than a frequently cited figure from the U.N.-sponsored Chernobyl Forum, which estimated 4,000 excess cancer deaths. The UCS analysis, released earlier this week, also estimates there will be some 50,000 excess cancers due to the accident."

The UCS people clearly either didn't read the actual publications by the Chernobly Forum, or they're being a bit loose with what the Forum actually said. The Chernobyl forum did not estimate that there were 4,000 excess cancer deaths. It estimated that there were 4,000 excess cases of cancer. Here's what the actual report by the Chernobyl Forum says.

Page 5: "By 2002, more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake.
Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations."

Page 16: "However, among the more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in 1992�"2002 in persons who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, fifteen deaths related to the progression of the disease had been documented by 2002."

Source: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

The Chernobyl Forum's findings are in agreement with the UNSCEAR findings I relayed to you earlier.

I know you're suspicious that the Nuclear Power industry might be funding bad research, and I think it isn't unreasonable to be wary of that kind of thing, but I think if you dig a little deeper into this matter, you'll see that there are a lot of environmentalists out there who are dead against nuclear power for reasons that aren't entirely rational, and they aren't above making some fantastic claims about the dangers radiation poses to the public.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Generally, I am suspect of any "union" of thought. Does the Union of Concerned Scientists welcome those scientists who are concerned that there might be flawed research in the GW predictions or has the union shown "concern" and spoken out against some of the treatment/ punishment and excommunication that some "skeptics" ( skeptic is _not_ a derogatory term and should not be used as such) have had to endure. .

Can anyone deny that joining any "union" of thought allows at least a little of the "consensus mentality" to have an effect?.

I think that the job of the those who are concerned is to release the information without hysteria. To try to convince and educate, again honestly. Not that that the union of Concerned Scientists is guilty of hysteria.

What I see is a political component that is also driving the "consensus". A political opportunism is at play to take advantage of the scary "consensus". The political component uses the "consensus" to coerce, to manipulate and to punish. That is the danger of the " consensus".

Michael Crichton commented on consensus science. He said...

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

Global humanity needs to be looked at as ONE organism. But even at 6 billion we are but like the flea on the ass of a fly on the ass of an elephant. Humanity will adapt or it will go extinct. That is only fair.
It will adapt or go extinct (note that the very act of "adapting" renders the previous incarnation "extinct"). It will happen at the pace that adaptation or extinction usually happens no matter what we do. It is arrogant to claim that we have all the answers NOW. Heck, in 100 science may have solutions we can't even imagine now. 100 years ago we were barely getting n the air, now we fly to other planets. We take ourselves too seriously and our ability to manipulate the planet too laughably.

I think that George Carlin had it right. Please watch the attached youtube link, particularly from the 1:29 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Mike

Here is a link that might be useful: GEORGE CARLIN - SAVE THE PLANET

This post was edited by mes111 on Mon, Nov 11, 13 at 11:44


 o
RE: climate change continued

Andrew, I was not at all talking about you on the subject of deniers, you were simply suggesting that nuclear energy might be the most efficient and economical way of dealing with the issue of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. I was referring to the fact that the deniers seem to be the only group in frequent conflict with the UCS judging from posts on the internet.

For those that want to pass judgement on this group, please at least do what I did and go to Wikipedia to determine who they are comprised of and where their funding comes from. Then check how the skeptics get their funding and the overall relative qualifications of these scientists.

You will also see that the skeptics aren't actually doing their own research, for the most part, but are instead attempting to discredit legitimate research or at least interpreting it much differently than the vast majority.

That is not to say that all outliers are not sincere, or accomplished scientists or even that they are certainly wrong. My point has always been only that they are in an almost extreme minority and that there is always going to be a level of controversy with any important theory.

I happen to believe that the odds lean heavily on the side of the majority consensus in just about any such case (anything so exhaustively researched). I also believe that to suggest these scientists are dishonest in their evaluations is extremely dishonest, even if not intentionally so.

Now Andrew, as far as nuclear energy, the UCS is the only group whose evaluations of this issue I've read about. Are there any similar non-profit and non-industry funded groups that you can refer me to that endorse the expanded use of nuclear energy?

I would love to see a panel of objective scientists, various energy experts and economists crunch the numbers and evaluate relative risks and expense in a holistic way and see what they come up with as the best way to move forward.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Deleted duplicate

This post was edited by mes111 on Mon, Nov 11, 13 at 18:58


 o
RE: climate change continued

BIOMED:

YOUR comment is exactly what is wrong with this debate. And it drives people like me,who are willing to be convinced, crazy.

You just made an unequivocal connection between CO2 buildup and 10,000 dead human beings. That case has not been made but that does not stop your side using these 10,000 dead as pawns or assets on the battlefield of ideas. Sorry ... that just sucks big time!!!.

BS is BS regardless of where it comes from. But this BS is shameless !!!!!!!!

I'm off this stupid merry go round.

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

Harvestman, I did look at the UCS page on wikipedia and I am familiar with some of their work. I think on most issues, their work is accurate but I disagree with their position on nuclear energy. I know they state that they take a neutral stance, but I get the feeling that some of the people they have working for them are among those that reflexively oppose nuclear energy because of their fears about radiation and nuclear weapons proliferation.

There really is no thorium industry, and no thorium nuclear power industry. Nuclear power from thorium is really the neglected stepchild of nuclear power, so to speak. Up until about a year or two ago all of the guys advocating reacting thorium in molten salt reactors were doing it on their own time and at their own expense. This continues to be the case for most of its advocates, although its best advocate has recently started his own company to try to promote this technology. Nuclear energy from thorium in molten salt reactors is completely different technology from what we use today. This technology was abandoned in the early 1970s, largely because it was so radically different from uranium and plutonium reactor technology which had already been developed to a large degree from the Manhattan Project.

I don't think there are too many non-profit organizations that talk about the benefits of nuclear power, but I'll look for them. It's not the sort of area that lends itself to non-profit advocacy because people who really believe in the benefits of nuclear power usually seem to find that their next logical step is to go to work promoting nuclear power. There are, however, nuclear physicists at Universities all over the world who can and do say that nuclear power is clean, that public fears of it are grossly out of proportion to real dangers, and there are many people who don't derive any income from nuclear power who believe - for reasons they can point to - that nuclear power represents the best option we have for dealing with the root cause of global warming.

In Nuclear Nightmares, a BBC Horizon episode I provided a link for earlier, scientists and doctors from various Universities and from organizations like the WHO testify that all the evidence that has been coming in from the populations, human, animal and plant, that were exposed to radioactivity following the Chernobyl accident, are showing that the doses of radiation that result from a worst-case scenario nuclear meltdown are hundreds of times less deadly than was projected using the LNT hypothesis. [A little bit about that: The Linear No-Threshold model is a model scientists have used in the past to understand radiation's impacts on human health. The Y axis represents probability of developing cancer, and the X axis shows the dose of radiation received. The data scientists had at their disposal to develop this model came from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb victims, who were exposed to several thousand times the natural background radiation. At really high doses of radiation, there is a fairly clear, linear relationship between dose and risk of cancer. Below a certain level (around 100 millisieverts, or 40 times the natural background radiation) scientists had no data and it is generally impossible to detect any health impacts of radiation. What LNT model does (this is the model that predicted tens of thousands of cases of cancer and 9000+ deaths after the Chernobyl accident), is assume that the linear relationship observed between cancer risk and radiation at extremely high doses applies equally to the risk associated with radiation at lower doses. It is this assumption that is increasingly being undermined by the evidence that is coming in from Chernobyl and elsewhere.]

I think the salient point here is that if the worst-case scenario for a nuclear accident is not nearly as horrendous as was thought, and radiation isn't nearly as dangerous as it has been presumed to be, maybe we shouldn't let those unfounded fears dictate our energy policy, particularly now when so much is riding on the decisions we make in this area.

Don't get me wrong, by the way, I'm not saying nuclear accidents are ok and we should just shrug them off. But nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima (which in terms of public health has turned out largely to be a non-issue) are the result of flawed designs using nuclear technology for which we have a much more efficient, much safer, much cheaper alternative. As it is, in the nuclear power industry, even using high-pressure uranium burning reactors, has one of the best safety records in the energy industry. We can do even better than this, though.

Below is a link to a three minute video that sums up energy from thorium. It's easy to watch and aimed at a lay audience. And it's produced by a guy with no involvement in the nuclear energy industry.

Here is a link that might be useful: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors in 3 Minutes


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mes,

I am just stating the fact that CO2 gas heat up the Ocean temp and the Philippines had a record typhoon with wind speed of 200 mph and this trend will likely to continue. It is also true that many lives have been lost in this tragic event and may exceed 10,000. If you can handle the facts then so be it. No Shame here.


 o
RE: climate change continued

But even at 6 billion we are but like the flea on the ass of a fly on the ass of an elephant

Mike, take a look at Google Earth sometime. What I see in terms of human signs sure doesn't look like a flea on the ass of a fly on the ass of an elephant. Spin to random spots and look around and you will find a whole lot of fleas.

It is arrogant to claim that we have all the answers NOW

Exactly! We don't know what the long term effects of CO2 emissions will be. Whats REALLY arrogant is to claim that we should just sit back and do nothing when faced with at least some possibility that something catastrophically bad could happen.

Scott


 o
RE: climate change continued

I'm going to kind of agree with Mike on the typhoon in the Philippines. As any climate scientist worth his salt will tell you, attributing a single storm to global warming is like attributing a particular home run to Sammy Sosa's steroid use. Sosa's steroid use didn't lead directly to any given home run, but did make it more likely that he'd hit a home run at a given at bat. Just so with global warming - it didn't cause a given hurricane, per se, but it does make it more likely that the ones that do form will be more powerful.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Well, as you say, you can't positively associate the typhoon to CO2, of course. But these are the kinds of super storms that are suspected to be increased by the warming.

Obviously, no one can make the call either way on an individual storm, but I have a funny feeling if you were a victim of the storm you wouldn't likely be an advocate for awaiting irrefutable evidence before some kind of action is taken.

The fact that global warming may be contributing to this kind of terrible suffering should at least bring some pause to anyone with a degree of empathy, unless you somehow feel absolutely certain there is no connection.

Andrew, if what you are saying about thorium based N. energy isn't excluding some major downsides, I expect that there will be venture capitalists buying into it in a big way in the near future. I hope it pans out for all of us.

I will scan your links when I have some more time. Thanks.


 o
RE: climate change continued

There is a good reason for hewing strictly to the science and forbearing on proclaiming a particular storm to be the product of global warming. Firstly, we genuinely don't know if and to what degree global warming played a role in producing this storm. It probably did, but that will become clearer in hindsight. Secondly, while the climate is indeed trending warmer, weather on a month to month, season to season and even year to year basis will oscillate above and below trend (although we expect it to be above trend more often than below). By seizing on particular weather events as evidence of global warming, the media give the public the impression that that is how the edifice of global warming has been built. It also opens a door to self-styled skeptics to declare global warming over every time it snows, or whenever one year is slightly cooler than the year before.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Biomes

First of you are not stating a fact. CO2 does not raise the water temperature.

The fact that you feel no shame is not surprising. It is not shameful.... It is despicable. It is despicable that you would use such an immense tragedy and loss of life, and mis-state a fact to bolster your position.

I can handle the facts. Your problem with me is that I can also understand them. Something you obviously you still need to learn.

You want to win the argument.... Do so with reasoning and facts and not on the backs of 10,000 dead men, women and children.

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike,
This is from the EPA "Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will have many effects

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will continue to increase unless the billions of tons of our annual emissions decrease substantially. Increased concentrations are expected to:

Increase Earth's average temperature
Influence the patterns and amounts of precipitation
Reduce ice and snow cover, as well as permafrost
Raise sea level
Increase the acidity of the oceans"

Did you even read the thread above by David Attenborough?

C02 increase Earth's average temperature and therefore also affect the body of water. Just for example, if place a bucket of water in a hot garage and in due time the temperature of the water in the bucket will get warmer. I am trying to get as basic as possible so you can understand.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Scottsmith

I was not talking about the physical visible scars of our presence. I saw comparison pictures taken of Long Island taken from airplanes 75 years ago to today and they are an ugly comparison.
A I wasn't talking about those kinds of effects. I was talking about what I believed was going to be our long term effect on our planet. I still believe that there are many interwoven and interacting processes that we don't fully understand and which I believe will have a much larger curative effect than we ascribe to them. I still believe that we are that flea.

Just a supposition ,,,, maybe higher CO2 concentrations will cause faster forest or planktonic ocean growth to absorb the excess CO2. We know that effect does manifest itself. Sound outlandish??

What I am and have been saying is that I have not yet heard what we can do that will have any appreciable effect. What we have the ability to do technically at this time will have little or no effect. What is able to be accomplished politically (or internationally) will have will have even less effect.

Yes, it is arrogant to say that we have all the answers now. We do NOT have anywhere near all of the answers now. Anything that we do as a knee jerk reaction based on incomplete information to do something just because it makes us feel good that we are doing something is doomed to fail. Some here are acting as if the disaster is upon us next Tuesday. We'll it isn't. And if the worst does happen it will not be for decades if not longer.

Yes it is a supreme evidence of our hubris to say that we can.

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

Biomed

Your post is non responsive, as expected. Still despicable use of 10,000 deaths to push your view that what?...

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike, like Harvestman said, if you were affected by the 200 mph typhoon then you would not think twice and do something about it. You see the increasing greenhouse gas effecst our planet and do nothing is who you are, and your stand as "It is what it is=doing nothing". Times will tell who is right and who is wrong, It has been a pleasure to participate on the topic.


 o
RE: climate change continued

There is nothing at all despicable I can see in tying in such a view to the typhoon, when it is already the belief of much of the world science community that increasingly unstable weather is the result of climate change that has already happened. In my opinion, this is exactly what needs to be stressed and the victims themselves would likely want people in this country to make this connection..

I happen to live in an area that got its first heavy early Oct. snow in memory (and then no snow for the rest of winter) and the following season we got hurricane Sandy which was a highly unusual hurricane in how far inland hurricane strength winds occurred.

Of course, there have always been unusual weather events, but there was much discussion around here about climate warming and its possible influence on these storms.

Should we wait for irrefutable evidence before we tie these disasters to the possible affect of climate change?

Maybe blithely dismissing such disasters a being almost certainly not connected to climate change is the despicable thing.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Here is an example of a seemingly reasonably balanced article about the possible affects of global warming on the intensity of Hurricane Sandy.

Here is a link that might be useful: Global warmings affect on Sandy


 o
RE: climate change continued

swamps,

William C. Gilbert, "My academic degrees are in Chemical Engineering and Chemistry and I have spent over three decades in Research and Development in private industry (DuPont, Monsanto, Celanese and American Cyanamid)."

I realize that this is a circumstantial ad hominem, but considering this guy has spent his career working for big chemical companies, it is hard to take him as totally impartial.

Also, the concept he is introducing in the paper (that a gravitational field causes a temperature gradient in gas) is not a new one. Maxwell an Loschmidt debated this 150 years ago. Gilbert is making the argument that the greenhouse effect (not global warming, just the idea that the atmosphere thermally insulates the planet) isn't as great as people think it is.

Oh and that link you provided is another one by our friend Marc Moreno. Please take anything you hear from him with a grain of salt.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I went a step too far in my assertion that much of the worlds science community believes increasingly unstable weather....

Should have said "much of the world's climate science community believes it may already be having an affect on the intensity of hurricanes, especially by way of increasing ocean temps."

I wonder if we do nothing and hurricanes become increasingly destructive to island nations, if members of their populace might become violently (even suicidally) angry with countries that did nothing as evidence mounted. Particularly the U.S., with our huge per capita carbon foot print.


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man:

Great...
Thanx for giving me something new to worry about!!!

Now I will have to stock up on those carbon spewing projectile weapons just to protect myself.

See... The law of unintended consequences... Your caution of those island nations getting suicidal in me is causing/forcing an increase in my carbon foot print. (and just when I thought I was doing better by converting my charcoal BBQ to natural gas)

Couldn't you just leave well enough alone.

Mike ----- :) :) :) :)


 o
RE: climate change continued

The whole thorium topic is pretty new to me and I've found it interested to learn about. It looks like India is moving toward thorium reactors and will have one online in a couple of years. I would have to say that my opinion (no expert) of nuclear is pretty close to what the UCS says, not a good/safe option yet so lets do more research.

konrad, was that meant to be a joke? I read through like almost a quarter of that discussion before I realized it was about aliens.

I saw an interesting opinion piece on CNN.com a week or so ago about a bunch of old women that have continued to live in the Exclusion Zone at Chernobyl. It is a little crazy and a little sappy, but also pretty interesting. One line that stood out to me: "Almost all of them are women, the men having died off due to overuse of alcohol and cigarettes, if not the effects of elevated radiation." Even with high levels of radiation exposure, behavioral factors like alcohol abuse and tobacco may have a greater effect on their morbidity/mortality.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Babushkas of Chernobyl


 o
RE: climate change continued

I'm sorry Mike, it was just a thought that occurred to me today as I was reading about that really terrible disaster. Andrew is right, of course, that from a scientific perspective it is way too soon to claim any certainty of a connection, but probably most of the victims of these storms have no doubt about the connection.

When one of my clients gets diagnosed for cancer they always become extremely nervous about what I'm spraying their trees with so it really doesn't always require any clear evidence when people look for an explanation of a horrible event. Here there is at least some evidence.

Don't worry, you don't live in a big, famous city so you are probably safe. And you are far enough from the coast so you're safe from hurricanes also.


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man:
I live in Atlantic Beach, NY, about 800 feet from the Atlantic.

My Orchard is in Greene County in upstate NY.

Actually, Greene county and Columbia County got hit very badly by hurricane Irene while Atlantic Beach had NO flooding at all. Shore communities with their flat topography do much better in rain only events ( no huge storm surge) where the excess water just drains into the ocean, than do inland communities where the uneven terrain causes rainwater drain from the higher elevations and to concentrate in the downhill areas and concentrate even more in the valleys.

Remember Vermont after Irene? Flash floods running down the mountains from heavy rains did as much damage as the Sandy storm surge did here. Less people were impacted because the population density is much lower. But, to those few who were impacted the damage was just as devastating. Whole towns were washed away in Greene and Schoharie Counties.

Even if climate stopped changing human suffering and damage to property would still increase due to (1) increased population density in general ( tornado, wildfire, spring floods, earthquake etc. and (2) increased pop. density at the shore where hurricanes visit.

I got lucky in Atlantic Beach. I lost my last tomato plant and had 6 inches of water in my garage. Others in the area not so lucky.

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

Low lying island nations in general have more to lose with sea level rise, natural or not.

Mike, when I read "carbon spewing projectile weapons" I had this vision of a shotgun with black soot oozing out of the barrel.

HM, with a lot of things like cancer, with a few obvious exceptions (familial, tobacco, etc) there is rarely a single thing you can point at as the etiological agent, yet people always want to have something to blame. I guess it helps people rationalize why something bad is happening to them.


 o
RE: climate change continued

About the whole nuclear thing it drives me crazy to see depleted uranium being scrapped as nuclear waste or even worse when you see the US using it as tank rounds in Iraq. Oh the irony of it all! It is a crime against humanity to waste such a potential energy source if only we had breeder reactors.

As to the effects of radiation you really can't compare people of different ages. Radiation has it greatest impact on individuals and tissues with high metabolisms, hence it use to fight cancer. While the old ladies by Chernobyl maybe just fine it is a completely different story for a developing fetus or new born.

I pray that technology like this eventually comes to fruition. It literally would change the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor


 o
RE: climate change continued

Sf, aren't most of our faith based belief systems attempts to overcome the terror of life's random bullets and stray arrows?


 o
RE: climate change continued

Well that is another discussion, but certainly that is true for some people. My belief system tells me to fire arrows at the moon, so in a way I am helping to reinforce the belief systems of others by my random mis-fires. Just trying to do my part.

When it comes to disease, you often see finger pointing both in faith and psuedoscientific circles. There is a lot of blaming of the victim, some kind of karmic wrath, with many diseases. Other diseases you see things like vaccinations, eating one food or another, participating in some activity or another, etc as being blamed as the cause. These are the worst in my opinion b/c they sound scientific on the surface (thus allow people to think they are making rational deductions) but really arise out of a lack of understanding causation, correlation, and controls.

Greg, I read that those thorium reactors being built in India are breeders. If nuclear ever really takes off, you can bet people will be out there with metal detectors looking for those rounds. You are totally correct about radiation and people's age. The article even mentions that part of the reason those women are allowed to stay is because they are beyond their child-bearing years. Even here in the states, when they install a cesium source in a lab (buried deep underground and lifted up in a special little dumbwaiter) they usually use old men to do the installation--I should say that I was told this, I haven't verified it independently.

This post was edited by sf_rhino on Wed, Nov 13, 13 at 12:55


 o
RE: climate change continued

This is good news. When you just stick to the facts about the global temperature, it's really impossible to deny that the globe is warming, and fast.

Here is a link that might be useful: Majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real


 o
RE: climate change continued

Well that is actually terrible news (but I do see the good part), but here's what might be good news. Seems like thorium based nuclear power is being widely researched already although it is in the very early development stage. Sounds like it could be a ticket we could all agree on.

Here is a link that might be useful: thorium based nuclear power


 o
RE: climate change continued

Harvestman, yes, there are engineering challenges to be overcome with thorium power. Apparently they involve working on materials that withstand high temperature salts for long periods of time and that resist cracking caused by tritium. I understand that engineers feel that these can be overcome and we can start producing thorium based power within a decade, as long as we devote sufficient resources to developing it. In the US, we really aren't devoting those resources to it.

One of the unique challenges nuclear power faces is its high initial costs. In thorium's case, the big cost is in R&D. I am told that private investors tend to shy away from the prospect of making big investments into R&D, then investing in capital costs, only to realize a return 10 or 20 years out. It seems likely that to get beyond the R&D phase, the technology, which was demonstrated successfully in the late 60s and early 70s, will need public support.

Renewable power seems great in principle, and I am not against its deployment, but according to Saul Griffith, an engineer and CEO of a wind power company, in order to meet even current energy demand, we'd need to cover a surface area equal to the size of Australia with renewable energy kit. (He calls this "Renewistan".) He and others point out that this will entail the construction of loads and loads of redundant power lines to compensate for times that any given renewable power generator isn't producing. This will be very expensive to construct and maintain.

The Holy Grail of energy is fusion. If we crack fusion, we'll have access to virtually unlimited energy forever. Currently, fusion is 50 years away, and has been for the last 50 years. In the mean time, as thorium proponents say, thorium will be good enough.


 o
RE: climate change continued

By the way, Harvestment, the disadvantages to thorium listed in the article you provided the link to that talk about reprocessing only apply to solid fuel reactors. In molten salt reactors, no reprocessing is required at all because all the "reprocessing" is carried out automatically by the chemistry of the materials in the core.

Thorium research is happening around the globe, but almost none of it is being conducted on molten salt reactors. The bulk of it is being done on solid fuel reactors, which are less efficient and more expensive. When they rely on pressurized water for coolant, they also have the potential, however small, to melt down and run the risk of hydrogen explosions, like those that occurred at Fukushima.

I would say that there are really two drawbacks to thorium molten salt reactors. One is that it does face a billion dollars or more in R&D costs, and the other is that it is a disruptive technology. Aside from sidelining most other forms of energy production, it has the potential to upend even current nuclear power's business model.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I was mistaken when I stated something I read in wikipedia, that climate science was only politicized in the U.S. This article shows that policy, at least, is strongly politicized in Australia but they aren't debating whether the climate is warming due to increasing CO2.

It is evidence that even if folks in this country are convinced that we have a problem and accept much of the science we will still be a long ways from actually effectively dealing with the issue.

Interestingly, it is the Darth Vador of media, Rupert Murdoch, who appears to be running the propaganda that seeds the doubts in climate science there, just as he has done so well in this country through the FOX network.

Here is a link that might be useful: Australian politics of climate change


 o
RE: climate change continued

I'm more concerned about the radiation and debris, floating over from Japan and hitting my state. Until we figure out how to deal with the clean up, nuclear energy is a dangerous game of roulette...that doesn't recognize any borders.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Lavender,you think coal fired electrical plants have borders? Nuclear energy is probably necessary as a stopgap, at least. Google thorium based nuclear power and get back with your opinion after you've done a bit of research. SF brought my attention to this technology and I think there is hope in it.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I don't understand this debate, and I deeply suspect that the reason I don't understand it is because it just doesn't make any sense. Let's suppose the adherents of the popular global warming theory won the masses over to their side. What would that accomplish? If there's any point in this debate it must come down to what people would do differently based on accepting the theory. What is that?

Do global warming believers have any less of a carbon footprint than agnostics/skeptics/deniers? I suspect, actually, that the opposite is true, because it seems the believers on average tend to belong to the richer classes, and heavier consumption (airline travel, how big your house is, etc.) surely correlates with fossil fuel footprint much closer than anything else (whether your car is a hybrid, how "green" your house is, etc.) Surely how rich someone is is the dominant indicator of how big his fossil fuel footprint is. That's not to say there aren't also rich people on the other side that could turn to fancy hybrids or relatively poorer classes that could buy energy star appliances, but the likely fact that the believers are the most guilty would prove how little ground there is to be won by making more believers. So that ground surely isn't what the debate is about. And even if it were, we could debate instead whether burning up our fossil fuel reserves over the next 100 years lands us in any better place than burning them up over the next 50 years.

So this must really all be about how people are going to vote, which makes sense because people love to debate politics and people don't debate anything like pure science (except perhaps for scientists in their specific fields of specialty.) But that global warming beliefs would really change anything politically denies at least two major realities.

First, global warming is global, so burning up fossil fuel sources in one country instead of another doesn't solve anything.

Secondly, the people that aren't presently on the global warming bandwagon mostly distrust government generally. Regardless of how much people accept the popular global warming theory people are still going to maintain the divide of believing a more active government is really good for the world versus believing that increasing centralized power is fundamentally at odds with what's really good for the world. For example, two people could both equally accept global warming theories but divide over whether the main effect of new regulations would be to restrain the bad guys or to crush the good, little guys with reams of regulations that only big, bad guys could stand up under. Are the believers in a more active government not trying to hide their politics behind "science"? And would the opposition be any less opposed if the debate moved beyond science?


 o
RE: climate change continued

CF, what would be accomplished? Obviously what many of us believe needs to be accomplished are policies enforced by our government that would reduce CO2 emissions.

You have reduced this into a kind of class war which is just a smokescreen to create resentment that stops a serious assessment of the issue. The scientists who are most concerned about this are not that rich, they are just better informed.

Just because a situation is complicated and difficult doesn't mean you throw up your hands and bury your head in the sand.

Politicians are like businessmen, mostly attuned to the short term interest of keeping their jobs. Only pressure from their voters will create an environment where anything can be done to change the status quo.

I would like to see a serious evaluation of this issue made by a combination of scientists trained in relative fields from economics, government policy initiatives, energy and climate to form practical recommendations with a plan a, b and c.

I would like to see a more enlightened voter base pressure the politicians to follow a course that makes sense to the people most qualified to evaluate such a course.

I was informed in this discussion of a potentially safer form of nuclear energy which may change who I vote for, ultimately. I'd like my government to invest in research of this safer form, ASAP, if qualified and objective examination deems it practical.

For me, this is the point of this conversation. To learn about an issue that may have very serious consequences to all of us. This way we can use what precious little power we have to make a positive change from a dangerous direction by voting for and supporting the politicians we feel are making the right choices.

Of course it is much more satisfying work to plant my fruit trees, but there is other work that, like every citizen, I'm responsible to do.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Agree HV,
Here another step...

Here is a link that might be useful: Crusade Against Overpopulation


 o
RE: climate change continued

So after this huge discussion -- if I missed something, let me know -- all you can say about what you want to accomplish is that it would be political? And we're just supposed to have blind faith that whatever political solutions might be thrown at the problem behind the smokescreen of science are something we should be supporting already?


 o
RE: climate change continued

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 16, 13 at 13:10

I've read this thread, and its predecessor, but have refrained from commenting because some of the posts have been a bit harsh for my tastes.

I just want to say that in many ways Cousin Floyd's last post is like a breath of fresh air to me (thumbs up to you Cousin Floyd).

Make no mistake, I'm not disparaging anyone for which climate change is near and dear to their heart. Nor am I sorry this thread was created. I've learned quite a bit from this thread and had a few laughs to boot.

I hope I'm not being combative. I hate combativeness for the sake of simply being combative, but I share much of Cousin Floyd's cynicism on this issue.

While I don't agree we should do nothing about global warming, I do think "feel good" measures to reduce global warming have the potential to do more harm than good.

Humans are already emitting a lot more carbon than the earth can absorb. With the world's population currently growing over 1% per year and aspirations of an increase in living standards (especially in third world countries) we would need to take massive steps to maintain carbon emissions at current levels, not even considering actions it would take to reduce CO2 to a safer pre-WWII level.

In the U.S., carbon taxes will simply make life harder for the poor and middle class with a nominal effect on atmospheric CO2.

Additionally, unless carbon taxes could be enforced worldwide (they won't) nations which institute carbon taxes will basically be transferring their wealth/industrial base to those nations which don't, for industrialization produces the lion's share of greenhouse gases.

China brings one new coal fired power plant online every week. A unilateral carbon tax on Americans won't change China's rush to industrialization, but would add a significant burden to the poor and middle class. The wealthy will always have an easier means to absorb costs associated with climate change taxes (or costs associated with climate change if nothing is done).

I'm not talking about an extra 20% in taxes on an American's heating/air conditioning bill, or a dollar or two in taxes on a gallon of gasoline. I don't think most people consider how deeply reliant we are on industrialization.

I've worked in a machine shop so I've perhaps observed this closer than most people. For example, I've machined parts for everything from plastic inkwells for large printing machines (these are wear parts and continually need to be replaced) to dispensers which dispense fingerprint dust used by police departments. My point is we rely on so much industrialization "behind the scenes". The CNC mills and lathe I used drew a lot of power (3 phase) and consist themselves a wonder of complexity and industrialization. Virtually every product we use is either molded or machined and relies on energy intensive machines to manufacture it. Those machines obviously require other machines to make them, transport, mine the materials, etc. It's much more deeply interconnected (industrially speaking) than most people consider.

I think this may be especially true for someone who sits at a computer all day in an office. That person would naturally have a tendency to believe they really don't rely on industrialization that much. They grow some part of their food (perhaps even a large part) drive a hybird car, recycle their paper/plastic/tin cans so that it seems as though they don't use many resources, but it's illusory.

I had to buy some steel from a local steel shop a few weeks ago to repair my bush hog (Doherty Steel in Paola KS). The first time I'd been there and the owner Clarence Doherty was a nice guy. It's a mom and pop business, but I was amazed how much tonnage they move and fabricate through their shop (I-beams for bridges, commercial buildings, stadiums, etc.) Stuff most of us use in our everyday lives but never really notice what goes in them. The shop was full of welders, acetylene torches, plasma cutters, mills, lathes, trucks and cranes outside. This rural shop is one of thousands that make up our industrialized lives, but most people never see this "behind the scenes" aspect of our lives.

It seems to me there are only two real solutions to reducing carbon. One is to de-industrialize. The second is to reduce the population.

I've always maintained the least painful medicine is to reduce the population through birth control (at least for developed countries like America). Some people feel threatened by having that discussion. I'm not sure why. The discussion is not about killing people, but about education and personal decisions about the size of one's own family via birth control.

Although the U.S. is not as population dense as most other nations, we produce a larger amount of carbon per person, so that population reduction in our country would have a larger effect on on carbon emissions per capita. I think our country could operate quite efficiently with 100 million people vs. 310 million currently. That change would easily reduce our carbon emissions by half or more, reduce congestion on highways and cities, cleaner air, less overall resources consumed, and less overall pollution from municipalities. Real progress toward the problem in my opinion.

Having said all this, I think there could be other helpful steps we could take like aggressively pursuing thorium based nuclear technology (first heard of it on this thread) and renewable energy sources like wind/solar. Why aren't we building one new wind farm per week in the U.S.A?


 o
RE: climate change continued

I've been a believer in ZPG since I was a teenager over 40 years ago, but from what little I know about the climate- carbon issue, even if we did decide to have fewer babies it would be a very long time until this would create appreciably less human influence on climate.

How does it happen to begin with if you don't have a baby tax? People do not think globally, they tend to think very locally. I can imagine the howls from the public if the gov. tried to reduce the fertility rate in any meaningful way.

I really think the solution needs to be based on very thorough research. Wind energy, of course, but if it is more expensive than coal powered electricity how does that work? Only with some kind of carbon tax does coal become more expensive- or with tax breaks the other way which ultimately is the same thing.

Any tax, tax break or anything that makes manufacturing more expensive has to hurt a lot of people, but it is up to government to distribute that in a fair way. The question is whether the pain is a necessary investment. If it is then you can't just give up because you can't trust the government to be fair.

If much of the population is convinced that man made climate change is a hoax, they will be extremely angry by any action that has a negative affect on them to accomplish something they feel is unnecessary.

China is beginning to show concern about the environmental destruction their industrialization has cost and while they are continuing to build coal electric plants they are also more robustly investing in green energy than is the U. S. gov.

I agree with everything you said about industrialization, Olpea, and that shrinking the human population is perhaps the most palatable solution. But I believe that global warming is an issue that will require a wide range of actions which should be assessed by expert analysis of trained specialists and not by politicians and laymen (like me). If you make bogey men out of scientists this can't happen.

Let them do their work, make their case and let us choose our future based on science rather than political beliefs and "common sense" hunches.

That really sums up my opinion on this issue- listen to the scientists closely- support further study and vote your conscience.


 o
RE: climate change continued

"you make bogey men out of scientists this can't happen."

They are not bogey men, they are human beings that have a family to support, so will say whatever they have to to keep their jobs and not rock the political boat. So many have been fired for expressing the truth, like hundreds, They now know better. I pointed out the stories, they are all over. It's really sad. KIng Obama just ruled against US law and said now you can keep your oid health care plan. You know i could have sworn, he swore to uphold the constitution?
He says global warming is real, so the king has ruled.
No more debate else you will be punished. Ever notice that only one red state in 5 years got federal disaster aid?
Even though numerous states asked for it. Google that too.
Hey they voted against the king and shall be punished.
Just like GM and Chrysler car dealerships who gave moneys to the Republicans, those dealerships were all closed.
Long live the King!!!


 o
RE: climate change continued

Drew, look up the data, the red states draw a much larger proportion of the federal budget than they contribute to it. I assume you'd attribute that to corrupt statisticians, of course.


 o
RE: climate change continued

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 16, 13 at 22:53

In my previous post I wrote:

"I just want to say that in many ways Cousin Floyd's last post is like a breath of fresh air to me"

The post I actually meant was the previous longer post by Cousin Floyd.

For some reason I didn't see Cousin Floyd's second shorter post referring to climate science as a smokescreen, which is an opinion I graciously respect, but do not share.

I think the bulk of climate scientists really are telling it as they see it. That is to say man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon.


 o
RE: Renewable energy

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 16, 13 at 23:42

'I really think the solution needs to be based on very thorough research. Wind energy, of course, but if it is more expensive than coal powered electricity how does that work?

Hman,

My thought on wind farms would be for the Federal gov. to simply build them. I would get behind a tax for that funding.

I don't see a problem with State owned power plants (or wind farms). The U.S. has millions of acres of land in potential wind generating areas. The government could lease the land from land owners, the same way wind farms owned by public utilities do it.

My thought is that if China can invest in one coal fired plant per week, why can't we (as a nation with twice China's Gross Domestic Product and 1/4 their population) invest in our energy future with one wind farm per week.

Of course wind is just one piece of the potential energy matrix. Other renewable sources of power generation could be substituted for those based on fossil fuels, even if there are more upfront costs associated with renewable energy.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Olpea, then we are in basic agreement. The devil is always in the details of where the revenue comes from for this wind energy development and other gov funded clean energy- if you don't raise taxes then you cut social security, education, military or something that will create pain somewhere else. Or you take on debt- always easier to charge the unborn who don't have the decency to vote.

A lot of people specialized in appropriate fields crunched numbers, studied the social implications and suggested a carbon tax is the most viable and fairest way of raising revenue that could finance such a project as you mention while making carbon based fuels instantly more expensive.

On this forum you, and many others suggest that such a tax could not be implemented fairly or effectively. I believe that might be true- I don't trust those anonymous experts either, and believe that pressure from special interests may be affecting their studies. However, I don't assume my suspicions to be correct and am still of an open mind.

The question of whether China would go along seems, to my inexpert mind, like an easy one- of course they will if you put a carbon tax (tariff) on their products.

The problem is, we can't even begin to have a national debate on how to deal with CO2 pollution if some of the loudest debate is whether it is a problem to begin with.


 o
RE: climate change continued

> For some reason I didn't see Cousin Floyd's second shorter post referring to climate science as a smokescreen, which is an opinion I graciously respect, but do not share.

> I think the bulk of climate scientists really are telling it as they see it. That is to say man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon.

Olpea, I can easily see how what I wrote led you to think I meant what you said, but that's not what I intended. I didn't mean to pass any judgment on global warming when I said it was a smokescreen. I only meant that huge political decisions which warrant lots of political scrutiny are trying to hide behind science, because a lot of people think science is above scrutiny, so calling their politics science is a way to suppress political debate and ridicule any political opposition.

Personally, I have no trouble believing that over-simplified understandings of the natural world and our technological powers to deal with it, along with over-estimations of our scientific wisdom to guide us into the future, could have led us into a mess as big as global warming. I'm equally skeptical of those same powers leading us out of the mess, if, in fact, the problem has been more or less accurately described, which I certainly lack the ability to judge. I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I definitely believe there's no such thing as pure science unaffected by money, politics, ambition, sin, etc.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I just wonder, CF, how information can ever become actionable in your construct if there is no science based way for a citizen to evaluate it. We can't, as individuals do our own research. Isn't it possible or even likely that by the time there is adequate certainty to fit your criteria it will be too late? Seems like your thinking can be described as a smoke screen as well.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Not related to climate change, but shows what is going on, and why you can't trust what you hear.

Five years of Obama removing his critics. Yet no outrage.
As far as I'm concerned we no longer have free speech. It comes with a huge cost, and it's not over what is said, but because it was said. We no longer are a free country. Far from it. Without free speech we can never be free.
This is the direction the Dems have always wanted, now they have it. And most people are fine with it too. I'm so glad I'm older. I will not have to see the downfall of this country, as brick by brick as it is dismantled.

Here is a link that might be useful: The removal of critics continues....

This post was edited by Drew51 on Sun, Nov 17, 13 at 19:44


 o
RE: climate change continued

I'm turning in this note to Obama. Better lock your doors.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Olpea and CF, it's good to have more people in on the discussion. I think both of you are making valid and reasonable points.

Like HM said, getting the population down say to 100M in the US would take a long, long time (provided nothing catastrophic happens, in which case we'd have bigger fish to fry). Just crunching the numbers, there are about 107M people in the US under the age of 25. That would mean with a zero new addition to the population (no babies, no immigration) we'd have to wait until everyone 25 and over dies of old age to get near 100M (about 60 years). I know you weren't literally saying we needed to be at 100M, but I just thought I'd put it in perspective.

In terms of competing with China's coal plants, I had a hard time finding good numbers on this. I see quotes ranging from about 1-2 coal plants per week, averaging 500MW/plant (so 500-1,000MW/week). In 2012 the US had about 14,000MW of wind power come online (to a total of over 60,000MW; we have about a 30% increase every year). That means the US is building the equivalent of 1 power plant (500MW of wind) about every 4 weeks. That is actually a lot higher than I would have guessed. USA! USA! USA! Of course, China has more wind capacity than we do so I bet they have a lot more coming online too.


 o
RE: climate change continued

HM, to admit that our ability to see into the future isn't crystal clear and that we should be informed not just by science but by experience/history, an understanding of human nature, ethics, sound politics, economics, an understanding of the role and influence of the media, etc., plus interactions like how economics and human nature influence science, how politics influences the media, etc. involves recognizing plenty of uncertainty/fog, but that fog is the reality of where these sorts of complex issues are decided; it's not a "smoke screen" unless one is puffing up one thing (science) to hide something else (particularly politics).

I'll add a quote here that wasn't written about global warming but was written by a very public global warming activist:

"The media, cultivating their mediocrity, seem quite comfortably unaware that many of the calamities from which science is expected to save the world were caused in the first place by science--which meanwhile is busy propagating further calamities, hailed now as wonders, from which later it will undertake to save the world.
Nobody, so far as I have heard, is attempting to figure out how much of the progress resulting from this enterprise is net. It is as if a whole population has been genetically deprived of the ability to subtract." -Wendell Berry


 o
RE: climate change continued

CF, what you post doesn't, in any practical way, deal with the question I asked. I have been very interested in the climate change issue for some time and have read enough about it to know that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the probability of a serious problem with increasing CO2 emissions.

You seem to be suggesting that as a group they've been motivated and thrown off of objectivity by personal interests, but most scientists who agree with the general theory have no dog in the hunt for climate change funding.

To me, the smoke is to suggest that because people are prone to interpret data to the perspective of their own personal interest we can just ignore the scientific community because they are not "pure" in their deductive reasoning.

So why not just throw out science altogether?


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man:
You said...
"I just wonder, CF, how information can ever become actionable in your construct if there is no science based way for a citizen to evaluate it."

A few messages ago I said that we have to look at the humanity and its various "cultures" as a single organism and expect that changes will take place at an evolutionary speed/level. A single individual can act immediately on "actionable" information. A group of people not as quickly a corporation less so... etc.

There is no science based way to make information "actionable" for 350 million people to act on it in unison, no matter how compelling the evidence.

What do you mean ..."why not throw out the science altogether?" . "Science" is not omnipotent. Science is the tool and methodology used to arrive at the facts. Unfortunately, the weak link is that those who use the tool are not infallible or are not all of them pure of heart. So... don't throw out the science but you can't expect slavish obedience to the science.

CF in his last post lays out the "fog" which is the reason that the behavior of cultures and societies "evolve" over time. They do not change on a dime.

Apparently those who feel that "we must do something now and do something big" are ascribing behavior characteristics of an individual or small groups of individuals who can wake up one morning and reach an agreement (consensus???), to the mega mind of a society. National entities, cultures, societies etc. don't work like that, except in the case of a total defeat in war where the change is thrust on them with no choice. The last time that happened was with Germany & Japan after WWII.

But now that we are more civilized and all out war leading to a total defeat is no longer cool that type of change will not happen.

The side that is running around saying "science says that we must do something or humanity is toast" and those who are saying "no, your science is bogus" are exactly parts the "fog" that CF is talking about.

But to both camps I say... there are changes happening. People are becoming more aware, pollution of all types is being reduced and this is being motivated, IN PART, by climate change fears, health related fears, people don't like to live in filth and many many other reasons that all taken together drive society's decisions and behavior.

This "fog" acts as a natural set of "checks and balances" so that the society does not go off the rails. A supertanker has a much larger turning radius than does a rowboat. You side seems to be trying to apply the rules that govern a rowboat to the supertanker.

CF, you did a better job than me in explaining the "why" of my point.

Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 18:00


 o
RE: climate change continued

People just don't seem to be all that concerned about the "severity" of the consequences of GW.

Acting boldly and severely to counter GW could cause greater damage, suffering and have a higher price than the "severe" consequences.

I think that GW is easier to adapt to than global cooling. Not much grows in snow. Shade cloth and extra water can deal with some GW effects.

Sorry, the problem is not immediate enough for me yet.

Maybe I am selfish... OK ...OR maybe I am just a prophetic optimist who sees human ingenuity as saving the day.

I have faith that our future generations will be able to use science to figure it out.

Meanwhile I don't want to sweat it.
Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Mon, Nov 18, 13 at 18:09


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike,

I have a tendency to agree with you on a bit of that. "Bold and severe" actions are not necessarily well thought out and effective actions. In my mind, bold & severe are words of politician. In general, science is good at giving solutions but the solutions aren't always/often realistically implementable. Unfortunately therein lies the disconnect--politicians can make things actionable for the entire populace, but they pick actionable items based on politics and not usually on facts or science.

I am not necessarily in favor of a carbon tax, but I do think it is one of the few ways I can see that would help link consumer actions to environmental consequences. If there are two apples at the store, one is local and costs $2/lbs and another is from NZ and has a ten cent tax (from the shipping). That isn't going to break the bank, and but it will shift the consumer towards buying the 'greener' apple. But, I'm not an economist, so what do I know. I think if people were more aware of their footprint, and what parts of their lives are more carbon heavy, they will make smarter more informed decisions.

ryan


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike, I'm the one who keeps posting that we need to base our strategy on the issue of this topic on the most informed interpretations of evidence we can find- that of scientists.

This is what we generally do whenever a subject becomes too complicated for us to navigate with common sense, either directly or indirectly and for better or for worse.

My comment on throwing out science was a challenge to CF, who suggests that scientists can't be trusted in evaluating the evidence on climate change because they are looking out for their own self interest- the old chestnut that makes it legitimate to remain skeptical and sit on our hands until the seas are lapping on our doorsteps.

There is no real evidence that it is more profitable for even climate scientists to go along with the tide- there is no previous case in the history of science where such an exhaustively researched issue has been analyzed by the global scientific community in a way that turned out skewered because of the self interest of that entire community. To me, that theory is devoid of common sense.


 o
RE: climate change continued

> CF, who suggests that scientists can't be trusted in evaluating the evidence on climate change because they are looking out for their own self interest

HM, is that what follows in your mind if you admit that what you receive from the media as "science" isn't perfectly infallible? Do you further assume that all the problems involved in this debate can be answered infallibly (or close enough) by scientists? You did say: "I would like to see a serious evaluation of this issue made by a combination of scientists trained in relative fields from economics, government policy initiatives, energy and climate..." At first I took that to mean that you agreed that science can't give us any solutions without involving other complex and disputable disciplines (which was the point I actually did make), but based on your further comments I wonder if you don't worship "scientists" so highly that you think they can can provide infallible answers (or close enough) to every other discipline, too (economics, government policy, energy, etc.), if we could just "train scientists" to do what economists, politicians, energy company executives, etc. do without somehow becoming economists, politicians, etc. or succumbing to any of the uncertainties or corrupting influences (whether simple vainglory or outside money...) that regular politicians, etc. face (and to which science and the media through which we receive scientific pronouncements are so immune -- unless that media source is Fox, which, of course, is corrupted by influences for which there are no counterparts in your media -- that we should always unquestioningly accept their pronouncements while ridiculing any skeptics into agreement with us, which, by the way, is also the way to produce sound science.)


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man:

You said...
"....makes it legitimate to remain skeptical and sit on our hands until the seas are lapping on our doorsteps."

That is exactly the point... I don't agree that the effect of the "seas lapping at our doorsteps" is as great a danger as you make it out to be.

We can probably all agree on the fact (science) that show that things are getting warmer.

The disagreement lies with the interpretation of the facts:
1. Why is it getting warmer human activity or not?
2. If by human activity, then what percentage?
3. Even if so, how dire is the effect?
4. If the effect is dire, then over what period of time?
5. Can we reverse it or just slow it down?
6. Since reversing it means removing 100% of the human added component, does it mean we cannot reverse it but only slow it down?
7. If we can only slow it down, how does that solve the problem?
8. Realistically, how much can we slow it down and at what cost?
9. Is the cost of slowing it down more disruptive than the cost of not slowing it down?
10. Maybe resources would be best used to deal with the effects of the inevitable warming rather than on the vain attempt to slow it down thus leaving no or less resources to deal with the inevitable?

Whichever way one leans, the disagreement as to the validity of the "science" is actually a very minor issue. The disagreement is over what we can, must, or should do about it .

And ... if the argument is that we must do something to slow it down to give future generations the time to come up with solutions then, in that event, we merely have a difference of opinion as to how long it will take for "science" to come up with the solution to the problem.

Interestingly, I now become the optimistic supporter of the scientists who thinks that the scientific regimen will come up with a solution rather quickly ( maybe with a little profit motive for them) so I don't have to massively disrupt everything now and you are the scientific pessimist who says that the solution will not be forthcoming from the future scientists.

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

The problem is that the climate science community is not so sanguine, as a group. The consensus (majority opinion) is that the prognosis is dire enough that we need to take action yesterday.

Every one of your questions has been addressed by folks specialized to understand likely outcomes. It is outside the scientific community that your questions are still being asked.

That isn't to say that there is unanimous consensus, but if you were deciding whether to have surgery and had a similar percentage of a group surgeons urging emergency, life saving surgery, you'd go under the knife tomorrow.


 o
RE: climate change continued

CF, I am using the term scientist more generally, including the science of economics and all other relative fields needed to determine best policy. The information needs to be digested by the public and pressure put on the politicians to do the "right" things.

I don't feel that scientists have really been granted an adequate pulpit on this issue and that very powerful interests such as Rupert Murdoch and the Koch bros. have muddied the waters to the point that the public is not hearing the messages of the scientific community.

I don't worship scientists, but I trust them more than billionaires in the energy industry, politicians or business men in general.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I'm turning in this note to the Koch bros. Better lock your doors.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I went to the urgent care clinic because I cut myself pretty bad and needed stitches. They asked me how many guns did I own? I asked why they were asking that? They said part of the new regulations. I said what if I refuse to answer? They said they could not treat me. So I told them 666. The info goes into my new public health file. You know the new law where your health records have to be shared with everybody. It may explain why your car insurance just went up. They look for risk factors in the public records.


 o
RE: climate change continued

CF, false equivalency. Just check the public record on Koch bros political contributions (investments). It's amazing how much they have invested to pursue their political (economic) agenda, they are in a league all their own. If you add it all up, they've probably spent at least 50 million dollars to promote climate change skepticism alone.

Not sure if you think I'm showing a level of paranoia equivalent to some other comments here of just having a little fun- can't see the twinkling eyes over the internet.

Drew, if I'd known you own 666 firearms I would not have been snarky with you, but your latest report does seem halucinatory. If such a thing happened to me I'd refuse to tell them and sue the SOB's if they denied me treatment.


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man:

I don't know what it is called but you and those on your side of the issue speak in dramatic and emotional terms, relaying an emotional or even hysterical tone. "dire" "so something yesterday", "seas lapping at our doorstep", and sometimes even sarcasm to buttress a point .

"... prognosis is dire enough that we need to take action __yesterday__". If we needed to take action yesterday then I guess we blew it and it is too late.

Also your repeated paranoia about Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, Koch Brothers is SILLY !!!!!.

Some Fox commentators have 2-3 million listeners out of a population of 350 million and they are stopping progress on combating GW?????

I also note that you did not even try to deal with points that I raised in my post.

I have asked numerous times... So please tell me :
If you had the power of law by decree ...

What would you, HM, do to solve the problem? With NO POLITICAL opposition, how would you solve the problem?

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

as quoted from the following link;

"While scientists tangle over whether or not man affects climate change, governments are weaving revenue schemes that depend on it.

Around the nation and world, the taxation of CO2 is gaining appeal as a revenue generator."

Here is a link that might be useful: governments cash in on CO2


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike, of course I speak in dramatic terms- I am trying to be at least a bit engaging and drama is a tool, but the point is, if majority expert scientific analysis suggests that now is the time to begin dramatically reducing carbon pollution we probably should seriously consider taking significant action.

If it isn't Murdoch and the Koch bros, how is it that the laymen constantly come back to the idea that scientists are on the take and dishonest on this one particular issue. So many of these ideas are spread like seeds and you can follow them straight back to the source if you want.

What makes you think that if you spend millions of dollars to spread ideas you can't sell them. I don't think I'm silly, I think you may be politically naive. Look up Roger Ailes' political history and see how these think tanks work to manipulate the media and us. Do you think the Koch bros. are idiots and just throw away their money without regard for the results?

It isn't only the right wing that does this, of course, but I believe that the right wing in this country right now has absolutely no shame. And who on the left invests as much money to pursue their political ideology as the Koch Bros? Again, this is not a conspiracy theory, but a matter of public record.

You ask me what I would do about it, but at this point I couldn't answer that precisely. I believe that a carbon tax might be a somewhat affective and direct route if the tax is spent on carbon-free power development, including possibly new technology nuclear.

However, I don't know what I'm talking about and I don't have the background to say with any authority what course should be taken- that has never been my point here.

All that I've said in my mix of the last 300+ comments on this topic is, let us listen to the scientists themselves then the economists, engineers,etc. What climate scientists are saying is not exaggerated or excessively dramatic, and the majority consensus is that action is required now.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Although I probably should know better, I'll add my voice to this thread ;-)

First off, I should say that no one alive today will likely know if there is GW or not. That verdict will not be conclusive for century or so, long past when any of us discussing it today are still around to argue or say "I told you so.".

What we are all trying to do is predict a complex system with a small amount of knowledge and data about that system, and draw conclusions about the future trend. A worthwhile task, but not an easy one just from the POV of the science involved. Throw in politics and economic prejudices and it becomes a total mess. However there are a few points I have not heard presented that are worth considering:

I have not heard a standard cost-benefit analysis done at the high level. That is where one looks at the various possible outcomes and projects what happens and the associated costs with each outcome if various courses of action are taken. It is a pretty standard way companies and some individuals make decisions. Folks have hinted at parts of this here, but if one can take a dispassionate view (hard to do on this topic), layout the possible scenarios, possible actions, and there associates costs and results, it becomes much easier to choose a course of action.

There have been parts of such a study, usually done by one side or the other, that surprise surprise reinforce their camp's view. But I would like to read the results of an unbiased presentation of all the possible outcomes and the cost-benefits of the various solutions applied to each.

What one usually hears are the most extreme points in this matrix (dire GW and we did nothing, or we do a bunch of expensive stuff and there is no GW). And while those may be the more interesting points, certainly the most politically and economically charged, they are not the entire story. It is only be seeing the full spectrum of possible climate changes, possible actions with their associated costs and benefits, that one can make a rational choice. And of course as we learn more about the climate system, this matrix will change, but at any point in time, it represents the best analysis of risk and action taken (or not taken). That is if you can honestly look at all the possibilities without dismissing the ones you don't like.

If anyone knows of such a study/paper, please let us know.

In the mean time, from personal observation in my own backyard, it's hard to deny that my local climate has changed. I can now grow and ripen fruits and vegies that did not ripen here 20 years ago. I mount my snow tires a month or more later in the year than I did 20 years ago. Is this a trend; yes locally it is or has been so far. Is it part of a bigger, longer term trend; that's the big question. At this point I am merely noticing the trend, I am not taking credit or blame for it.




 o
RE: climate change continued

Although I probably should know better, I'll add my voice to this thread ;-)

First off, I should say that no one alive today will likely know if there is GW or not. That verdict will not be conclusive for century or so, long past when any of us discussing it today are still around to argue or say "I told you so.".

What we are all trying to do is predict a complex system with a small amount of knowledge and data about that system, and draw conclusions about the future trend. A worthwhile task, but not an easy one just from the POV of the science involved. Throw in politics and economic prejudices and it becomes a total mess. However there are a few points I have not heard presented that are worth considering:

I have not heard a standard cost-benefit analysis done at the high level. That is where one looks at the various possible outcomes and projects what happens and the associated costs with each outcome if various courses of action are taken. It is a pretty standard way companies and some individuals make decisions. Folks have hinted at parts of this here, but if one can take a dispassionate view (hard to do on this topic), layout the possible scenarios, possible actions, and there associates costs and results, it becomes much easier to choose a course of action.

There have been parts of such a study, usually done by one side or the other, that surprise surprise reinforce their camp's view. But I would like to read the results of an unbiased presentation of all the possible outcomes and the cost-benefits of the various solutions applied to each.

What one usually hears are the most extreme points in this matrix (dire GW and we did nothing, or we do a bunch of expensive stuff and there is no GW). And while those may be the more interesting points, certainly the most politically and economically charged, they are not the entire story. It is only be seeing the full spectrum of possible climate changes, possible actions with their associated costs and benefits, that one can make a rational choice. And of course as we learn more about the climate system, this matrix will change, but at any point in time, it represents the best analysis of risk and action taken (or not taken). That is if you can honestly look at all the possibilities without dismissing the ones you don't like.

If anyone knows of such a study/paper, please let us know.

In the mean time, from personal observation in my own backyard, it's hard to deny that my local climate has changed. I can now grow and ripen fruits and vegies that did not ripen here 20 years ago. I mount my snow tires a month or more later in the year than I did 20 years ago. Is this a trend; yes locally it is or has been so far. Is it part of a bigger, longer term trend; that's the big question. At this point I am merely noticing the trend, I am not taking credit or blame for it.




 o
RE: climate change continued

Steve, I agree with everything you say except when you, as the media often does here, put climate positions in two separate political camps that simply represent two equally legitimate view points.

As long as the skeptic side is dominated with the viewpoint that the climate science community is deliberately skewering data for career advancement and poo poos all the research, there is no equivalency there and rational action is imperiled.

I also am slightly perplexed that you can suggest that you may already be experiencing very noticeably warming weather and not express concern that such a dramatic change in seasons might not also include a matrix containing increasing drought in this countries mid-section and in other corn, wheat and soy growing areas in other parts of the world. If this happens or is already happening, it won't matter if the science is absolutely conclusive and alarming consequences could occur next year or in the very near future.

Never the less, I agree that action should be based on data and not emotion, even if that is impossible to absolutely achieve. A start would be for the skeptic side to stop accusing scientists of mythological motivations and let the scientific community do their work.


 o
RE: climate change continued

> the skeptic side is dominated with the viewpoint that the climate science community is deliberately skewering data for career advancement and poo poos all the research

You don't really believe what you just said, do you?


 o
RE: climate change continued

I would like to add to this discussion but I need to get out and gas up my SUV so that the plants around me can get that co2 boost to grow larger.

Mike ( not being snarky... just having some fun)

This post was edited by mes111 on Wed, Nov 20, 13 at 8:21


 o
RE: climate change continued

Harvestman6, I try to stick to the scientific viewpoint only. Something that is very hard to do without political and economic prejudices creeping in. Take a look even here on a gardening forum, your post generated a couple of political replies with no useful content.

I don't pay much attention to the popular media for exactly this reason. Might as well be reading the sports section with predictions about next Sunday's game, in fact there might be more science there.

I do think that some of the skeptical writers (not the popular, and energy corp tied ones) have some points worth considering. But their points are in terms of additional scientific factors which aren't being looked at; not diatribes about how the current measurements are flawed or corrupt or not showing what been published. The connection of earth weather/climate with the sun cycles is one that might have some merit (although may not have a huge impact on warming/cooling).

Let's face it, nature is a complex system. We humans have a tendency to reduce complexity to one or two variables. While that can be useful in some areas (mostly the simple systems we create), it's just plain wrong in many others, especially complex systems.

To answer your other question, it is pretty hard to not notice local climate differences, especially for someone who gardens or grows plants outside. The changes here over the last two decades are obvious (USDA zones have all moved up a zone or two). While I am happy to have a longer growing season, I am also aware of the other changes this brings, wildfires, floods (we had them all in the last few years).

The real question is why has this happened, and what does it mean for the future. That's the point that I am still open on. It appears we are in a warming trend, and that that trend will continue. Personally I expect that will happen with about an 80% prob. But I am open to the possibility that the climate trends will oscillate or even reverse. I would not count on those outcomes, but they are possible, given our rather feeble understanding of all that goes into the climate system. (And I recognize there are other cycles, such as the methane hydrates melting, which may dramatically accelerate the warming trend too)

In the mean time, as we work on this question, we personally are faced with the question of what to do? And do you take responsibility for your actions. I would have no problem if folks who were skeptical of GW and went on burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow were held accountable. If CO2 is found not to really be a factor, great they were right. If it is a primary factor, they should be the first to go hungry when the famines hit. But we all know there is no such accountability. If there were I suspect humans would be taking a much more conservative (in the original meaning of the word) approach to GW. Until I hear the skeptics owning up and accepting the consequences for what they do if they are wrong, their talk is just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).


 o
RE: climate change continued

Steve, we are in agreement with everything you said. What I do wish is that a thorough and objective survey of top notch climatologists from around the world would be made that queried them on, given the current state of research, what is their best guess on outcomes right now. Drought, rising oceans- the full bit. Then take the average and put it through whatever specialists would be best at analyzing the most probable level of damage to humanity and and where it will most occur.

I realize that the accuracy of this would be questionable, but it seems the best we could do to determine how much of an investment should make right now to reduce emissions.

CF, it surprises me that you question my seriousness of that statement. Every time we discuss this topic here the skeptic side chimes in about how climatologist are cherry picking data to get grant money. On this very thread there have been comments that suggest this. A perfunctory survey of the internet will quickly reveal how frequently this point is repeated.


 o
RE: climate change continued

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 0:12

sf rhino wrote:

"In terms of competing with China's coal plants, I had a hard time finding good numbers on this. I see quotes ranging from about 1-2 coal plants per week, averaging 500MW/plant (so 500-1,000MW/week). In 2012 the US had about 14,000MW of wind power come online (to a total of over 60,000MW; we have about a 30% increase every year). That means the US is building the equivalent of 1 power plant (500MW of wind) about every 4 weeks."

I've been very busy the last few days and finally had a chance to catch up on this thread.

I agree Rhino, the U.S. is not doing nothing on wind power, just not enough in my opinion. China's new coal plants will generate roughly 1500 megawatts per plant (see link below).

According to "http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp" the U.S. added roughly 13 gigawatts of wind energy in 2012. That is slightly over 1000 megawatts worth of capacity per month. In other words, while China is adding that capacity every week, we are building the same wind capacity in a month and a half.

This is woefully inadequate in my opinion. Regardless of how one feels about global warming, wind energy makes sense. In the right locations, cost of wind energy is comparable to more traditional forms of power generation.

Again, I don't understand why we can't afford to add the same amount of wind generating capacity, as China's coal generating expansion, when we have four times their domestic output and with only one quarter of the people. It's not because of lack of wealth on our part, but lack of a commitment. According to Wikipedia, we have enough wind energy in the U.S. to generate 9 times our total current electricity consumption.

Personally, I would like to see wind mills as common as road signs in the U.S. It would signify energy independence for our country (and cleaner air). We seemed to have gotten used to (and live with) obnoxious road signs (with no benefit). Why not get used to looking at wind mills, which would offer us a natural "free" non-polluting resource for energy (maybe we could remove some of the road signs if people want to reduce road art)?

Kansas has quite a few new wind farms, but there was one county in southern KS (can't remember which one) where the county commissioners voted against wind farms because of aesthetics. Completely absurd in my opinion. Those people deserve to have a coal or nuclear plant in their backyard instead.

You and Hman make a good point that population control would take some time, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't see progress along the way. It could take a century to reduce our population in a minimally disruptive way to 100 mil, but we would start to see some benefits immediately.

Last I heard from an oil analyst on the radio, Americans use an average of 30 bls. of oil (and oil equivalent products) per person per year. If we reduced our births in the U.S. from the current 4,000,000 to half that, we would save 60,000,000 barrels of oil the first year. Not a tremendous amount of savings, but each year would have a sort of compounding effect (second year save 120,000,000 barrels, third year 180,000,000, etc.)

From I scientific perspective, I've not heard any scientists state we have too few people on this planet, but I have heard/read several scientists state we have far too many people, with no end in population growth in sight. These same scientists also claim a population crash will be inevitable from something nasty like (disease, starvation, pestilence). Those who chose not to bring children into those circumstances may well be glad they made that choice. Either way population will eventually be controlled, either by our own thoughtful careful means, or that of nature. I think everyone knows nature is typically not very kind.

Here is a link that might be useful: China's new coal fired plants - water stressed regions


 o
RE: climate change continued

Here's a prominent global warming proponent and "Scientist" with a political agenda.

Here is a link that might be useful: He wants you to suffer for the earth


 o
RE: climate change continued

Olpea, surely you don't believe questions of how many children people should have can be answered mostly by science (unless you, like HM, include "sciences" as soft as a ripe astringent-type Asian persimmon)?

HM, sure your political opponents exaggerate and dramatize things just like you do, but you said "dominated with the viewpoint." Maybe it's just dominated in the caricatures of your political opponents that you find in the extreme politically biased media of the opposite side, but surely you don't believe those extremes represent the mainstream of the political bloc opposing you?

> The real question is why has this happened, and what does it mean for the future.

Steve, you, too seem to want to think that the huge political questions that follow from whatever the best science may be are practically insignificant. Will any proponent of global warming activism ever admit that he's on a highly disputable political crusade (completely apart from any underlying scientific questions)?

> I would have no problem if folks who were skeptical of GW and went on burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow were held accountable. If CO2 is found not to really be a factor, great they were right. If it is a primary factor, they should be the first to go hungry when the famines hit. But we all know there is no such accountability.

So you equate objecting to your political crusade with personal responsibility, despite the sure fact that GW skeptics carry a LOWER fossil fuel footprint than their political opponents (who predominate among the more elite classes that carry the heaviest footprints). No wonder your political opponents don't even want to come to the bargaining table. The elites are primarily responsible (in actual practice), but they blame their political opponents instead because they won't "solve the problem" by giving more power to them, the elites.


 o
RE: climate change continued

CF, you are making a political argument out of this. There is no debate going on between the people who are trained to understand the data. Rarely do scientists rally so consistently around any theory, short of maybe the theory of gravity.

I am liberal politically, yes, but this shouldn't be an argument between liberals and conservatives and shouldn't be politicized at all. As I've already stated, only political conservatives in America tend to question the legitimacy of human caused global warming- the debate elsewhere is about what to do about it (not whether to do anything).

I don't know why you keep going there- that side burns more fossil fuel- as if that has anything to do with the actual debate. It is just another red herring to discredit the "other side".

Because people of higher education in this country make per capita a lot more money then non- professionals they are also going to be bigger consumers. If there was a carbon tax they would be taxed more heavily as well.

Oh yeah, and a higher education does tend to make folks more receptive to the scientific perspective and therefore more likely to agree with majority scientific opinion.

If I was arguing that the answer is for everyone to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint your point might have some relevance.

Most people calling for action on climate change stand nothing to gain as far as getting power or money from the effort, Making this an issue about elites vying for more power is just crazy talk as far as I'm concerned. What is the basis for this conspiracy theory?

The elites in this country are the kind of people I work for and they do not need a carbon tax to increase their wealth- what elites are you talking about specifically? Let's have some names. I bet for anyone you can name there are ten who stand to gain from unfettered development of petro and coal based energy.


 o
RE: climate change continued

"Most people calling for action on climate change stand nothing to gain as far as getting power or money from the effort, Making this an issue about elites vying for more power is just crazy talk as far as I'm concerned. What is the basis for this conspiracy theory?

The elites in this country are the kind of people I work for and they do not need a carbon tax to increase their wealth- what elites are you talking about specifically? Let's have some names. I bet for anyone you can name there are ten who stand to gain from unfettered development of petro and coal based energy. "

Harvestman, haven't you heard of Enron?

Here is a link that might be useful: Some history of the carbon conspiracy


 o
RE: climate change continued

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 23:26

"Olpea, surely you don't believe questions of how many children people should have can be answered mostly by science"

Cousinfloyd,

I wouldn't state my position that way. I'm not at all in favor of someone dictating, "how many children people should have". That is a personal matter for each family.

I'm in favor of education. In that sense I think scientific disciplines (or simply logic) can measure the impact of people on our own habitat. I'm a believer in education because it has changed my own views on this subject.

I don't think there is any debate humans are facing dwindling natural resources, less available arable land, deforestation, and many other problems resulting from very large numbers of our race.

In spite of this, world population continues to increase by 75 million per year. I think this is a problem.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Swamp, I checked the site and it was exactly the kind of thing that I think has clouded the whole issue. It was not in any way a science based article, just the typical country lawyer kind of editorializing where the author simply misrepresents the science the author has no authority or proven ability to evaluate.

Just the fact that he welds the issue of the fairness of the Kyoto treaty to the science of climate change is an indication of what is the motivation of the perspective.

Why should I respect the writer and his interpretation of climate science? He is a spokesmen for corporate interests- a pundit for Forbes Magazine, for heaven's sake. Once again, all I am advocating is taking the politics out of climate science where people with no understanding of the science itself come up with clever new ways to make the innocent appear guilty or show how the earth is actually flat.

I am not an advocate of the Kyoto treaty and the kind of carbon tax I would personally advocate (at this moment and with inadequate info) would be tied directly to the energy itself and used to create alternate energy sources. Enforcement would be created by trade barriers that made carbon based production more expensive, but the money would go to clean energy only- not to developing countries.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Olpea, thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to ask whether you thought anything should be dictated, though. What I meant to ask was whether someone could say, "I'm a scientist, and although it's your right to make your own decision, I can tell you with my scientific authority that your decision to have X number of children is objectively/scientifically bad," or "I'm not a scientist, but I've heard from scientists/reviewed the science, and although it's your right..."

HM,

> I don't know why you keep going there- that side burns more fossil fuel- as if that has anything to do with the actual debate.

If burning more fossil fuels doesn't have anything to do with the "actual debate," what does?

But I'm not the one bringing up the issue of responsibility; I was just responding to Steve's comments about "what to do" "personally" and "tak[ing] responsibility for your actions." It was his argument, and I was simply pointing out that the facts don't support his argument. The purpose of the argument seems to be moral manipulation for political purposes, but that argument immediately fails on the premise. It is nonetheless telling how weak the support for your side is. The argument to your opponents might stand a little better chance if you could show that you believed it yourselves.

> I am liberal politically, yes, but this shouldn't be an argument between liberals and conservatives and shouldn't be politicized at all.

Which is to say, so long as we take your political position for granted, namely that centralizing power in the hands of elites, the political process, the Washington establishment, etc. is the best way to solve problems generally, there's nothing to politicize. And, of course, if we begin by taking that political view as a given then there isn't really anything to politicize, but why would you expect the kind of people in this country that still have their own guns to take your political view for granted? But you've completely changed your tune in your last comment. You've gone from answering the question of what should be accomplished from saying, "Obviously what many of us believe needs to be accomplished are policies enforced by our government," in other words, saying that the debate is all about politics, to saying "all I am advocating is taking the politics out of climate science where people with no understanding of the science itself come up with clever new ways to... show how the earth is actually flat." (You conveniently ignore the historical fact that Galileo was harassed as a skeptic of, to quote you, "interpreting [scientific facts] much differently than the vast majority.") In any case, if you actually wanted to take "the politics out of climate science," you'd be content with people saying, okay the earth clearly seems to be warming, and there's a plausible scientific case that burning fossil fuels is a significant cause, but there's a much weaker case for believing that continuing to burn fossil fuels at a somewhat slower rate is going to make a significant difference going forward (or that doom isn't already inevitable or that climate altering technology won't be our savior), and there's zero scientific case for believing that giving more power to politicians would even accomplish the intermediary goal of a slower rate of burning fossil fuels. One needn't "disagree with majority scientific opinion" to distrust the political process and white collar elites to take over every sphere where scientists have described a problem. But so long as all the talk about science is indistinguishable and inseparable from your political vision you shouldn't expect your political opponents to pay homage to any of it, which is to say, since your science is ultimately all about your politics, your opponents quite reasonably aren't going to concede anything. If it gets under your skin that your political opponents don't want to award you points for science in your political crusade, then you're only further encouraging them, because they probably like getting under your skin. And what politicians and the masses say about science really doesn't matter at all anyways apart from politics (which you now say you want to take out of it) and what to do personally (with which you show no concern apart from politics.)


 o
RE: climate change continued

CF, your remarks are extremely difficult to deal with in the barrage form they come in- I wish you'd edit a bit for clarity and maybe employ a few more paragraphs to make it more readable for me. That would certainly make it less laborious to formulate a coherent response.

You seem to be saying (along with some other things) that even if the climate is warming in a dangerous manner and action does need to be taken, the government can't effectively do anything about it, because, you know, our government can't be trusted to do anything right.

I could go much further and deal with what you are saying point by point, but that would be, umm, pointless, because that position, all by itself, makes me realize I could never come to any agreement with you or even, probably, learn anything from you- at least on issues involving politics or even government.

I ask one thing in parting, though- what government exists or has ever existed that reaches your standards of a properly functioning government?


 o
RE: climate change continued

CF, I'd like to answer your comments on my statement about people taking responsibility for their actions...

My position is if a warming trend is happening then we will be glad for any and all efforts to slow it. Things that slow the trend are generally good in that case, and things which worsen it bad. If the warming gets as bad as some of the predictions, then the consequences will be severe; famines, coastal flooding, and the like.

I don't think the science is iron clad conclusive yet (and probably won't be proven or dis-proved for some time to come). But most everyone in the first world at least has heard about climate change (or global warming, or whatever you'd like to call it). The question is what are you going to do about it, and are you willing to take responsibility for your choices if you are wrong.

If one chooses to believe that CC is a hoax, and go on living your life burning tons more fossil fuel and adding to the problem you might be right. But what if it becomes clear that CC is real and some of the dire consequences do start to happen are you willing to "pay" for your mistake? It doesn't matter what you believe now, you made a choice are you willing to bear the burden of that choice if it turns out to be the wrong one? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and let the pain and costs you wrought fall on others?

You don't need to answer, and the reality is that no-one is likely to hold people accountable for there decisions now (many of those people won't even be around when TSHTF, if it does).

But my point is that if people thought that they would be held to account for their decisions, they would take a much more cautious approach to this (other things in the world as well).

This is why I would like to see a real risk-cost analysis done. Such an analysis doesn't care with which side is right or wrong (and we really can't know that now anyhow). It takes a look at what the costs and benefits are to each potential scenario coupled with each choice of action. Some combinations lead to disaster, some sort of an OK solution, and if you are lucky a few great ones. But by doing this you at least become aware of where the really bad possibilities are and can be on the lookout for them developing, while working on your chosen path.

Instead, what I mostly see is people arguing my side is right. Yeah well, that's nice that you have a position and are willing to defend it, but since we can't and won't know the real answer for some time yet, and there may be dire consequences to getting this wrong, doesn't it make more sense to change the nature of the discussion?


 o
RE: climate change continued

Q???

I've heard the magic number of 450 ppm of CO2 as a "red line" we must not cross.

Has anyone calculated how much of a decrease in CO2 emissions is necessary to attain that goal? And over what period of time?

And if such a calculation has been made, has anyone calculated the economic cost?

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

FOLLOWING IS JUST MY OPINION NOT SCIENCE.

Throughout human history there has always been the tension between the "haves" and the "have nots". At this time I don't want to go into why the "haves" have and the "have nots" don't. That is a different conversation.

There were always those who felt that those who have should use and give some of what they have to help those who do not. This happened by voluntary charitable giving and sharing based on some philosophical/religious/moral imperative. Under this regimen the giving was voluntary.

In time, a societal imperative was added to the giving which added a coercive element to the giving/helping. Taxes were imposed, property was confiscated and the moneys distributed according to the dictates of the political class.

Now the giver had no choice of giving and no input as to who was to receive the help.

There were always those who said "not enough is being given" and " you must re-distribute more of the wealth". Then there were those who, now had no say in how and to whom the help was given, said "too much or the wrong kind of help". There are arguments to made on both sides, but that is a different topic.

The tension always existed as it does today. The political class has always been able to play the "us against them" card to separate people, who otherwise have many more other interests in common, from each other. My own opinion of the politician class is that it is more interested in accumulating power and if a tangential benefit flows to the politician's constituency then that is fine, but the goal is accumulation of power.

NOW as to CC/GW.

There has also been "re-distribution of wealth" argument on the global scale. This side of the argument has now also latched on to the GW/CC bandwagon seeing it as an opportunity to obtain a greater degree of wealth transfer to the "less developed" part of the world. The political class is now using GW/CC as just another food source.

Listen to all of the speeches in the UN from the "representatives" of the "third world" nations. All of their troubles are caused by us. Most of these nations are run by dictators and despots. Most all of the "rulers" on these third nations world have used the trillions in aid that they have received to enrich themselves, their families and allies. Meanwhile, their "people" still don't have roads, education, toilets, food etc.

I fear that our feel good or guilt driven politics will prove to be our undoing.

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike, if you are worried about Kyoto treaty methods to re-distribute wealth, I wouldn't worry too much bout that. U.N. treaties that involve paying out by developed countries to underdeveloped don't have any teethe and the tradition is that not much gets out there. Check results of current K. treaty.

Certainly our own nation finds much more affective ways to squander wealth and has spent much of its economic advantage coming out of WW II- most of it on unnecessary wars and an obscene military budget in general, IMO, followed closely by a bloated, inefficient health care system, criminal justice system etc. etc. and as much as some conservatives complain about gov attempts to redistribute wealth it is flying towards the plutocracy.

I certainly agree with you on the division created by Gov. vs private charity or aid. I think many liberals don't understand small town, big church culture where people take care of their own and don't want any "help" from the federal gov. Of course that doesn't mean they don't want their medicare or social security.

Those in small town culture (physically and/or mentally) don't understand how this system fails in more urban environments and generally in a more secular society. There are many problems in the modern world that only a central gov. can rectify, as flawed as such govs invariably are..


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man:

your response is so rich....

I am not worried about the Kyoto treaty. I was just taking note how the "third world" political class has hitched itself to the GW/CC bandwagon to further their demands.

As to our nation "squandering " our wealth. I think that it is up to me to decide how to spend ("squander" in someone else's eyes) what is mine. If I don't get the value for my buck that another thinks I should get, it is just too bad on him. It is still my buck to spend as I see fit.

Again you start with the "liberal/conservative" labeling smokescreen argument. Sorry that duck don't fly...

"The bloated healthcare system"....? Our system, although labeled "Private" has been greatly influenced by governmental intrusion ( even before Obamacare) which warps the system and DOES NOT allow it to work effectively and without "bloat". Why can't I buy health insurance in New York from a company in Georgia. Why, does the government pass a prescription drug bill that does not allow it to negotiate cheaper prices with the drug companies. The health care system is bloated precisely because of governmental involvement.

The snark about the conservatives who don't want "help" but then "want their social security and medicare" should be beneath you. The government sets up a Social Security System that takes a combined 15% of my pay every week from the time I start working at 18 until I stop at 65 and more money for Medicare from my entire working life and when they start paying it back you call that "government help"???.

If they did not over-promise (SS & Medicare) and under-deliver or better yet if they had not meddled and screwed it up in the first place I would have enough money to take care of myself.

YES>>> I believe that the collective can take it upon itself to help the truly needy, unfortunate who are so through no fault of their own.

BUT let it be honest about it... Let the government come out and say "We, the members of your government, feel that it is a good idea to provide health care to certain people who are unfortunate for various reasons and we want to impose a tax on all of us to cover the cost.

Instead, because they don't want to use the word "tax", they say, "we are not going to tax you so we can do the right thing" What the government says is "...we are going to force you buy something with things in it that you don't want or need, like an 80 year old couple having maternity benefits, so that the extra money you pay to the insurance company can be used to offer insurance to those who can't afford it. And if they still can't afford it we will subsidize them with money we get from you in other ways.
And when people complain that the government does not have the right o force you to do this, the government, without an iota of shame, says "we are allowed to tax you to do this so we are taxing you to force you to do this".

And, more... they pass Social security which is a retirement plan. And on its own it might work. But then they say that it would be a good thing to have benefits for minor children of deceased citizens. That is a laudable goal but instead of selling that idea to the populace and raising taxes to do so, they just tacked this benefit to the retirement plan without adding funding to cover this cost. When the actuarial work was being done for the retirement system the variable of some people dying early was taken into account in the calculations but not for their children to be receiving these benefits. But don't bother me with the details. They announce to the sheep, look what wonderful stuff we are giving you that you aren't having to pay for. The cost is added in a stealth mode because now the original system calculations don't work, but, that won't be apparent for years and by then everybody already got the free stuff and won't remember or hold accountable those who screwed it up. They added feel good benefits to accumulate more power now . People got free stuff without having to pay for it- at least not now!!!.

Then hey add "Social Security Disability" benefits. To a retirement plan??? again without funding.... and in the same way. So the retirement plan is going broke....

I think that right now the RETIREMENT portion of the Social Security payments that go out every month are only about 20% of the total going out. The remaining 80% is for all the other stuff the feel good politicians added to it.

The SS retirement system is a joke. The US Treasury Department (one arm of government) borrows money from another arm of the same government ( Social Security "trust" fund) and gives SS an IOU (in the form of a low interest bearing bond). The low interest on the bond that the government gave to itself is insufficient to cover the benefits that the SS Dept needs to pay out. And the government now artificially drives down the interest rate on government bonds when the Federal Reserve ( another arm of the same government) buys the bonds being issued by the US Treasury ( with money "created" out of thin air because nobody else wants so many bonds and so much). But wait.... this causes interest rates to go down so the interest that the US Treasury pays to the Social Security Dep't goes down... so SS now has even less money coming in to cover the benefits that they promised. AND.... at the same time the super low interest rates now PUNISH & SCREW all of the people, many many senior citizens among them, who did the right thing as they were told to do by "SAVING FOR THEIR OLD AGE". Now their savings accounts are giving off 1% ( maybe) interest to live off.

So... HM please explain to me and to those people who live in the "small town culture (physically and/or mentally)" --- [[just can't stop the condescending, self important, all knowing SNARK, can you?]] ---- who are probably also holding on to their guns and bibles just how this wonderfully efficient government of yours, which has f****'d up practically everything it touched, can be the only entity that can solve the "... many problems in the modern world that only a central gov. can rectify, as flawed as such govs invariably are.." ( your words).

And I bet that the people living in the "small town culture" are all mis-informed and brainwashed by Fox News and the Koch Brothers. Because otherwise they would just __know__ that the "... urban environments and generally in a more secular society..." are so much superior.

BTW, the criminal justice system is generally a problem caused in the generally government supported more "secular" "urban" environment.

As to the "... unnecessary wars and an obscene military budget in general...", I don't say that there was no waste but to call it obscene ignores the fact of the reality on the ground after WWII. There were two forces in the world at the time. One was a metastatic expansionist repressive dictatorship and the other, by any definition, the opposite.

Immediately after WWII, the first entity gobbled up more than one half of Europe and Asia with little resistance from the other.

By the time the second woke up, the only response available was the "obscene" military budget. You, today in 2013, can luxuriate by calling it "obscene", but think of those people who were living it in 1946, 47,48,49, and really had to deal with it.

As to those "on unnecessary wars"...20/20 hindsight is wonderful!!! Maybe you should ask the people of today's South Korea if it was un-necessary or those in South Vietnam who weren't all that crazy to live under Ho Chi Min, or those in Laos or Cambodia and Grenada, and Panama and yes even IRAQ !!!!.

Just because a war does not have the desired effect or outcome as was in Vietnam or Iraq does not make it as "un-necessary" in "front-sight" as does in hindsigh.

Could we have done it better, or in a different way? Maybe... but it does not warrant your holier than thou analysis of the past? Nah... .

And ... I know that you will be able to cherry pick a phrase or two or more in my response and tear it to shreds, but please take a look at the post as a whole if you wish to comment. .

Finally, to you HM and to all others I apologize for the length of this post.

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike, your interpretations are so offensive it really takes me back. It is as if I was personally insulting you- your response is hostile to the point of stunning.

Snarky is something you do to individuals, not anonymous groups.

I am as cynical and appreciative of the motivations of urban liberals as I am of more rural social conservatives (see comments I've made in the past about the organic food movement), I have no idea how you construed what i said as an attack on who, what? What is your investment? What do I represent to you? On the bus I ride on we are all angels and clowns at once. I don't really see the villains.

The comments I made, I stated, were just my personal opinions, and once again, I fail to see how you take it as a challenge to attack my opinions in such a personal manner.

Judging from your attack on the U. S. government, I suppose I'm probably more an outlet than a cause- but, as a general condition, I'm not certain of my own motivations, so why bother theorizing on those of people I don't even know.

I'm not engaged in this discussion for this kind of battle and I'm sorry that I somehow brought you to this state. Your opinions don't anger me and I don't think anything I said should have angered you.

I never accused you of faulty thinking or being brainwashed by Fox News, or the efforts of the Koch Bros and I never presume to know how any single person comes to their political conclusions. What's more, when friends accuse me of being brainwashed by the NY Times, or MSNBC, I don't really find it offensive.

Do you feel I'm insulting your people? There is no political group that I identify with like that.


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man

I was not personally offended by what you said and I was not out to insult you.

My opinion on the government leans more towards its incompetence than to a conscious evil intent. My contempt is towards the politicians' class.

Your past posts do reference Murdock, Fox and Koch as those whose power and influence are , in part at least, is causing the populace to ignore the science. ( see your post Nov. 19). I read you comments sounded that the unsophisticated small town mentality resulted from the same influence of the evil industrialists.

When I noted that I thought that there was an attempted money grab using GW/CC issue your response seemed to indicate that this was a better use of our wealth than the wars, bloated healthcare etc. Actually I came to the defense of our government's use of our money post WWII.

Then your small town mentality comment seemed to dining rate it. I am NOT from a small town, but for some reason that seemed to me to be un-necesarily condescending.

And NO you are not insulting "my" people. There are no "my" people.

My reaction might have been raw but was not intended to be insulting

Mike


 o
RE: climate change continued

No problem.

By the way, I was against the Viet war, and Iraqi war in front. I also thought Desert Storm was probably easily avoidable and the death of so many Iraqi draftees forced to the front lines by a dictator was something worth avoiding at any reasonable cost.

I marched against the Viet war in the early '60's as a child with my parents, as I was raised a Quaker, which is a pacifist religion. I actually argued with my sixth grade teacher about it saying Ho Chin Ming would win a general election of open democracy because he was a national hero for driving out the French (something I'd read in a book by a French writer who opposed the war for a second time around).

It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not real thrilled by my country having a military budget it can't afford and more than the next ten highest spending countries combined. But this isn't a debate I actually want to go into here. It was just a passing comment and not even related to climate change as you imagine I meant. I certainly don't expect all reasonable and intelligent people to agree with me.


 o
RE: climate change continued

Mike, the question I always have for libertarians is, where has their ideal system ever worked? What government in the real world are they asking us to emulate?

Complain as you will about our government, history has not shown that a laissez-faire system is more meritocratic, efficient or in any way more virtuous- whether you are speaking of the outcomes for the poor, the plutocrats or anyone in between.

Post Roosevelt, socialistic America has provided its people with the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, although it has arguably slipped in the standings of late.

But I don't really want to get into a boring political discussion point by point. I just wish you'd answer the first paragraph's questions here.

When I consider the limitations of our own species, the difficulties we have in resolving conflicts, of seeing the other sides point of view, our natural tendency to exaggerate our "fair share" and above all, our propensity for violence to resolve differences, my expectations of any government are not that high. I'm grateful for the one I have, with all its faults.

The reason I continued this discussion was to help educate myself and others on the issue of climate change. I learned about a form of nuclear power that I may be able to support and also began to think about the limitations of any world wide treaty to address the problem. I hope a few others got as much out of it. I guess venting can also be helpful.


 o
RE: climate change continued

So much for consensus...

So all those posts in this thread or related threads about the number who believe in the big lie, turns out to be a big lie itself! ROFLOL, This is even better than the ozone hole!!
No doubt at all in my mind that the press cannot be trusted at all. The new era, "the information age", will defeat them is defeating them, as more and more people bring truth to power. What a joke the current administration is, not only the US, but the UN, and most of the western world.
And the press is one large propaganda machine. Unable to distingish truth from fiction. Man George Orwell was a genius! He saw this coming.
I was ready to give up, but you know, I think the truth will all come out one day. A little bit of hope via the free internet is still hanging on. And may just win the day.

Here is a link that might be useful: The joke they call consensus

This post was edited by Drew51 on Mon, Nov 25, 13 at 1:50


 o
RE: climate change continued

Drew, If you are going to enter a story that is 3 years old (yet still interesting) I probably should post this rebuttal.

I was surprised to find that someone as entrenched in environmental causes and appears in no way financed by energy interests took this position. I will read more about it and see if any other attempts at objective surveys are out there.

If you agree that we should base our actions on a legitimate consensus of scientists in relevant fields then we are in agreement.

I have no investment in the belief in man-made climate disasters. A single article by an outlier is not enough to alter my position, however. I have heard many climatologists being interviewed on this subject over the last few years who generally seem to fall on the "Al Gore" side of the issue. If the consensus is phony, I don't see how the credentialed skeptics don't have a media platform when this article received huge attention, apparently.

Here is a link that might be useful: response


 o
RE: climate change continued

Drew, here is a more complete and seemingly quite reasonable rebuttal.

Here is a link that might be useful: survey


 o
RE: climate change continued

H'man:

I've taken the last couple of days to ruminate and to re-read the posts of this entire topic (both threads) to try and analyze, for my own introspection, my responses and reactions.

The various labels, liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian etc., try to standardize a description for individuals and you just can't do that.

I am not a "pure" libertarian any more than I am a pure conservative or liberal.

On some issues I am to the "right" of Attila the Hun, and you'd be surprised how far "left" I might be on some others.(the whole idea of labeling "right" and "left" started with William Buckley on a T.V. talk show debate in the 1960's)

If I was to form a political party, I would call it the "Sit Right" party. I find myself, more and more just realizing that some stuff that is being done just "doesn't sit right" with me. When that happens I start looking into the subject to see what about it is bothering me and whether it is important enough for me to concern myself with it.

I think that "government's" role should be limited to setting down basic rules/laws. The rest needs to be left to the collective "mega-mind" to develop.

What we seem to forget is that even the largest governmental rule making body is made up of individual human beings.

Once you invest any body with coercive powers, the individuals comprising that body take notice. Over time that the more "aggressive", the more "radical" the most invested "activist" members of that body start to exert their influence within the body. The more gentile members, the less radical, less confrontational members lose influence and are pushed to the side.

Over time the benign governmental body is no longer so benign. The society then becomes victimized by the nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat who writes the rules and has the practically absolute power to enforce.

We have legislators who write laws and within the laws they abdicate their duty by giving the power to interpret and enforce the law (rulemaking) to the bureaucrat.

I propose that every lawmaker be required to affirm that he/she has read the law, understands the law and his/her understanding of what the law is trying to accomplish.

We make corporate officers to attest that they know the contents of the financial statements that the corporation is releasing.

I further believe that any law that requires more than 50 pages is too complicated.

you said that ...
--"Post Roosevelt, socialistic America has provided its people with the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, although it has arguably slipped in the standings of late."

I think that this was despite the "socialist" turn. The system had a certain momentum that worked despite the turn.

The second part of your statement may have subconsciously proved my point. Roosevelt himself said that governmental employees must not be part of a union for collective bargaining. He stated the inherent conflict of interest of politicians who hold the purse strings disbursing their largess o a group that could now be counted on to return the favor with political support. But, even the the FDR socialist g-d was ignored when it came to human nature's desire for an advantage.

If the government is the protector of the weak, why do the employees of the very government need unions to protect them from the protector?

After 50 years after Roosevelt the turn began, because the needs and desires of the bureaucracy came to dominate the needs of the people that the bureaucracy was to serve.

I am not talking about a totally laissez-faire system. But wahtever you say about a laissez-faire system, it is more energetic that a top down control system which history HAS proven, becomes calcified and does NOT work. A more a laissez-faire system forces human ingenuity to adapt t the environment to be more creative in order to grow, prosper and even survive. When you strip away the need of the individual to do for himself because some government program will provide it with no effort on the individual's part, you strip the energy from the human condition and that is THE recipe for extinction.

That is what __I__ mean by "large government". As I look upon the current landscape, I see more and more of what I described above.

I think that our national will is being sapped because our individual will and energy is being supplanted. Now is that a liberal, conservative, libertarian view? I don't know. IT JUST DOES NOT SIT RIGHT WITH ME.

Happy turkey everyone,

Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Tue, Nov 26, 13 at 11:29


 o
RE: climate change continued

It is amazing that something so arcane as evidence for man-induced climate change can have such high-energy interest among nonspecialists.

Personally, I stick to topics of lesser controversy, say like gay marriage, gun control, homeschooling, vaccinations, socialized medicine, and jet contrails.


 o
RE: climate change continued

None of those things have anything to do with my fruit trees. When I started getting pests in my trees like green stinkbugs, which had never been a menace here, and we moved up a full climate zone, this issue took on a special resonance. Cornell has even started recommending that commercial growers consider the investment of frost control- because of climate change they believe is already happening.

Growers are always thinking about the weather and worrying about it. Climate is not the same as weather, of course, but it certainly pulls it.


 o
RE: climate change continued

That's why I limited it to "evidence for man-induced climate change."

Of course climate change per se has far wider interest.


 o
RE: climate change continued

The following link details how "man made climate change" is used as the impetus for looting the united states, australia and europe. Note that "emerging economies" like china and india?!? are exempt from regulation under the U.N scheme for redistribution of wealth.

Here is a link that might be useful: U.N. robin hood scheme


 o
RE: climate change continued

Swamp, no one here has endorsed the above treaty or refuted what you've already submitted about it.

GB, if you are interested in climate change, you are also interested in causes.


 o
RE: climate change continued

It's nice to know that some really get it, and I'm not alone.

Here is a link that might be useful: The alarmist rant demystified


 o
RE: climate change continued

Drew,

The author (Delingpole) is doing a bit of cherry picking himself. He comes across a bit confrontational, which I guess is necessary nowadays for anyone to be a popular commentator.

Anyway, the chart he is showing is not a chart in support of the argument "Extreme weather events are increasing: yet another green propaganda myth". He is showing a chart of deaths due to extreme weather. This is not the same as the number of extreme events. Is it surprising that more people died of weather-related events in the 1920s-1940s? That was an era of world wars & their aftermath (not to mention a world-wide depression, antibiotics were just being discovered, viruses were not well understood). Many many posts ago, I put up a chart showing the increase in the number of billion-dollar weather events per year. This is also not the same as an increase in the number of events. It is more a function of our development along the coasts and short-term thought when it comes to civil planning.

The chart that Delingpole shows is taken from data in the paper "Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008" (I.M Goklany) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 14 Number 4 Winter 2009. The paper is definitely making the argument that the human costs of climate change are over dramatized. However, just looking at the data from the paper we cannot draw the conclusion that Delingpole is making.

From the actual paper:
Figure 1: The number of extreme climate events per decade

There is likely better reporting of extreme events now as compared to the early 20th century; however this graph clearly shows the events are increasing.

Figure 2: Deaths and death rates due to extreme climate events per decade

This is the data from Delingpole's graph. He is showing the data from Figure 2 and making a statement contrary to Figure 1. Did he not see Figure 1 (didn't read the paper he is referencing?) or is he selectively reporting the data that fits with his argument? Either way lacks integrity both scientifically and journalistically.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link to paper


 o
RE: climate change continued

I'm not making any kind of statement with regards to climate change here (anthropogenic or not); I just think that these are interesting data to look at.

One thing I didn't mention before, death & $ by extreme weather events is often due to location more than severity. A weak storm hitting a population center or sensitive area can be worse in terms of human life and dollars than a massive storm that hits an unpopulated area.

Also interesting from that paper--looking at the causes of the deaths in each decade during the peak of deaths (1920s, 30s, & 40s):
1920s (5 events): 97% deaths due to drought (0% to floods)
1930s (6 events): 0% deaths due to drought (98% to floods)
1940s (9 events): 93% deaths due to drought (3% to floods)

Interesting how the cause flip flops each decade. This is probably due to one or two major events causing the deaths in each decade. I don't have the data on this (but you can see the link below), but dam construction really took off in the 1950s and 60s. It would make sense that this would greatly reduce the number of deaths due to both flooding and droughts.

If you look at the 1990s-2000s the majority of the deaths are due to storms and extreme temps.
1900-1989: storms = 11k deaths/year; temps 0.1k/year
1990-2009: storms = 20k deaths/year; temps 5k/year

The paper is really trying to make the point that our morbidity and mortality rates due to climate are decreasing and that a lot of that decrease is due to technological advancements we have thanks to our access to energy/fossil fuels. Some of that is definitely true, but there are obviously large opportunity costs associated with some of that development.

Here is a link that might be useful: Contains a chart on global reservoirs


 o
RE: climate change continued

There is a liberal argument for not drastically reducing greenhouse emissions, assuming government based efforts to reduce world poverty is primarily a focus of liberals. In the long view, it should concern folks of every political position- the tide that lifts the poor lifts all of us.

Here is a link that might be useful: Dirty fuel and poverty


 o
RE: climate change continued

The only ship that's sinking around here is GW. Nice they are going to let that ship pollute the pristine waters, what a shame. What were they thinking? A fools journey to prove GW. They certainly set back the cause. It just goes to show how little we understand our weather. But the disaster makes perfect sense to me. It once again, after many times, shows the incompetence of the scientists associated with GW.


 o
RE: climate change continued

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 1, 14 at 21:18

You've read all of their findings and met with each of them personally, to find out for yourself what they were about?


 o
RE: climate change continued

Please let this thread die now. Start another if you like.


 o
RE: climate change continued

I think it's pretty telling that Drew51 thinks that a couple cold days disproves global warming.


 o
RE: climate change continued

XXX

This post was edited by mes111 on Fri, Jan 3, 14 at 20:13


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Fruit & Orchards Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here