Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
"I'm sure there's a lot of spin"
That isn't spin, it's out-and-out misrepresentation (not on your part, but by the dope who first mentioned it).
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way.
This is why I've always felt that we're ultimately fucked if climate change is indeed a real thing -- there's essentially no way to prove that it's as cataclysmic as feared, short of removing all effort to curb it to see what happens.
As things stand now, people who are already skeptical of its impact or existence see all these measures we've already put into place and consider them wasteful initiatives that address a fictional problem. What if they're actually effective, and we'd be much worse off without them? There's ultimately no way to know.
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
I didn't say we weren't. He asked me what would happen. It doesn't matter if we are accelerating it.
Same results. Climate change is constantly occurring. Whether a point is reached a few 100 years one way or the other, we still have to adapt.
You nor I didn't make that decision. We evolved and tapped the resources of the earth for our comfort. What are you willing to give up? electricity? The combustion engine? Air travel?
We have made great strides in reducing emissions in the last 50 years. The first totally solar powered community in the US is being built 10 miles from my house. Who is supplying the power? FP&L. I travel the country and there are wind turbines all over the Midwest. Why hasn't the northeast any on the coast in the Atlantic? Oh, that's right. Nobody want to sit on the beach from Maine to Jersey and look at them god forbid.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, is scrambling to create a new energy source. Guess what, it hasn't been found yet. When it is found, it won't change the world over night. Infrastructure improvements take time.
When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years.
It is not going to turn around tomorrow. You can be assured that people way above our pay grade in knowledge are working on making it happen.
As with anything else, there will be consequences. Foreseen and unforeseen as this process evolves.
I am just not a chicken little guy and never will be.
working to actively suppress anything that will undermine their bottom line, create an environment of disinformation, and pass laws to the benefit of oil companies vs investing in renewable sectors, where economic growth potential is enormous. There is obviously going to be a transitional period, but we can't just sit still because we're afraid of change. Nobody is saying you have to give up anything.
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Problem is storage. While technology is expanding exponentially, it's not a nut we have cracked yet
You don't think that if I could store enough energy to power my place for a week or so on stored solar energy that is scalable and affordable I wouldn't do it?
I would jump on it in a minute.
The animals have to eat and have water.
Right now I have 2 choices. Propane generator that runs my place with a 1000 gallon buried tank or PTO generator that I can run off the back of my tractor.
I have a small hobby farm. Now think of the people who have to feed the nation. Why do you think windmills are used all over the breadbasket for water supply aver thousands of acres?
working to actively suppress anything that will undermine their bottom line, create an environment of disinformation, and pass laws to the benefit of oil companies vs investing in renewable sectors, where economic growth potential is enormous. There is obviously going to be a transitional period, but we can't just sit still because we're afraid of change. Nobody is saying you have to give up anything.
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Like I said, I refuse to be a chicken little. If you don't see the progress we have made over the past 50 or so years, go for it.
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'll never fail to understand people
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
.
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
RE: RE: So why stop progressing now all of a sudden?
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'll never fail to understand people
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
If the goal is to discuss climate change those proposals are very relevant. If the goal is to turn this into a blatantly political thread and get it deleted then you might be right.
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
I disagree with that. Never mind that there is a green lobby which also makes this political, but if you look at the major proposed treaties you will see that this had very little to do with climate change and much to do with sending US money to other countries, i.e.; a redistribution scheme. As I've said before, i could buy into changes solely due to potential hazards, but anything that is punitive to the US (and that means not applicable to every single other country) or sends US money anywhere would be deal-breakers for me. And, that would lead me to question true motivations.
removing any mention of climate change from their official website is political? You don't think that one side defunding NASA's earth sciences division is political? You don't think that installing am the ex-CEO of the largest oil conglomerate as Sec of State is political? You don't think the governor of Florida barring any state employees from even mentioning climate change is political? You want to talk about the green lobby when all these things are happening and you think it is those that are advocating for solutions to help with climate change rather than the people who are trying to drill in our protected national parks? What side is it again that is looking to open reviews on 200 national parks to drill for oil again?
Are you serious?
Not to mention that we already send billions of dollars annually to other countries for reasons less important and less noble that combatting climate change. Give me a break.
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
I literally have been saying this entire time that you don't have to buy in 100%. 100% does not exist in this world, but stop pretending like the two sides are equally as bad on this topic because that is objectively false.
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
Heh, like half the companies with the largest revenues in the world are oil/energy companies. But yeah, they're balanced out by the failure of Solyndra. The lobbying influence is basically the same for green and fossil fuel sides, obviously.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
"And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is no"
I never, ever implied that the science is invalid.
That's a harsh statement
Unless you have been under a rock. Technology is expanding exponentially. That means better extrapolation of data. Anyone who has a grasp of statistics can make the data conform for any theory you put out there.
And be assured it is just a theory because it hasn't come to fruition yet. That there were and are short term fluctuations is expected. Remember, we are talking eons. Hard to grasp.
Is there anyone on the planet who doesn't know that there has been a warming trend for the past 5/6 centuries or so since the mini ice age?
Gore has done more harm talking in absolutes the anyone else. His ridicules claims of everything happening by 2010 was the worst thing you can ever do. Until proven, everything is a theory. If there is a super eruption in the yellowstone basin tomorrow, we won't be talking about global warming for a long while.
The one thing that is certain is that climate change is always occurring and has since the beginning of the planet. There is no denying that. The O2 level has dropped from ~35% to the present 21% over the past 350,000,000 years or so. Way before our involvement. A relatively short period of time also.
Science is always evolving too. Assumptions made on available data ot the time does not make it non valid for that point in time.
I would guess that I look at this in a much bigger picture than most.
science may be more than just climate change, but talking about climate change is a lot about not knowing squat about science but acting all sanctimonious about it. It'll be lost on some, but I truly believe many people are more about claiming others dismiss science than actually think about the science.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
science may be more than just climate change, but talking about climate change is a lot about not knowing squat about science but acting all sanctimonious about it. It'll be lost on some, but I truly believe many people are more about claiming others dismiss science than actually think about the science.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
Why I talk in such broad terms. I'm in two habitat restoration groups, a board member of 1, that has an interest in quail habitat on 68,000 acres as well as an adjacent ~100,000 acre parcel. Nevermind all the other stakeholders for the minute The water flow off the property changed when I75 in Fla came through. Fast forward 30 years later and the population is exploding. As growth expands and we are in a drier dry season, reclaimed water is what is used for lawn irrigation. For some reason people think that if you move to fla your lawn needs to be green 12 months out of the year. Anyway, with the expanding of 75 the opportunity came about to reestablish the original water flow. Now we know the wheels of government turn slowly and this has been over 10 years because we are talking a multi jurisdictional state, counties and cities buy in. The process is speeding up because a city desperately needs that water. Might get done in another 10 years which would be extremely quick.
If I see another burn pattern study to see what is best, I will go crazy.
I have seen more studies by research groups for everything under the sun and seen the money spent for it for decades.
What I have found over the past 1/2 century is that every stakeholder has their scientists that specialize in that area to study their concerns, Whether that is compatible with the other stakeholders studies is a complete different quagmire.
None of the science is "wrong".
Now get all the stakeholders to agree to a plan of action?
I have sat in too many meetings for that.
Good luck.
ctc- I'm generally in agreement with you on most of this, but this
Unless you have been under a rock. Technology is expanding exponentially. That means better extrapolation of data. Anyone who has a grasp of statistics can make the data conform for any theory you put out there.
is false.
Statistics can be made to mislead those that don't understand statistics by those that do.
Folks that actually understand statistics know that you cannot make them say whatever you want. You can mislead those that don't understand, but that's pretty much true with anything.
Also to whoever it was that said something about running everything with a steam engine....technically that is where almost all of our electrical energy (outside of some of the newer forms) comes from. Coal, gas, and nuclear are all used to heat water to turn turbines and create electricity. Steam hasn't gone anywhere and isn't anytime soon.
One observation: It's sad that instead of arguing the merits of the data, conclusions, and discussions- that instead everyone is arguing about which side is more "political" or providing "fake news" than the other.
The source of any of the data presented is pretty much irrelevant- either you can defend the data or you can't. Generally attacking the source means you can't.
Statistics don't say anything. It can easily mislead the uniformed (intentionally or not) so one must be careful when drawing conclusions based on any given data set.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
"Climate change rhetoric?"
At the core, it comes down to this: This is going to be a massive problem that can have massive sociopolitical impacts on an international level, never mind the ecological and environmental disasters.
The people that realize this are trying to get people in power to understand this. One political party has made it a point to call into question the science behind climate change, let alone the impacts, and resists efforts to take step to avoid the fate we are facing.
I try to avoid Russian backed fake news sites
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
Quote:
In comment 13442754 santacruzom said:
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
"I'm sure there's a lot of spin"
Both expenditures aim to accomplish the same goal?
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
I try to avoid Russian backed fake news sites
http://i.imgur.com/dvvuLmc.png
Quote:
In comment 13442823 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13442754 santacruzom said:
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
"I'm sure there's a lot of spin"
That isn't spin, it's out-and-out misrepresentation (not on your part, but by the dope who first mentioned it).
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way.
This is why I've always felt that we're ultimately fucked if climate change is indeed a real thing -- there's essentially no way to prove that it's as cataclysmic as feared, short of removing all effort to curb it to see what happens.
As things stand now, people who are already skeptical of its impact or existence see all these measures we've already put into place and consider them wasteful initiatives that address a fictional problem. What if they're actually effective, and we'd be much worse off without them? There's ultimately no way to know.
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Quote:
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
Quote:
In comment 13442505 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
I didn't say we weren't. He asked me what would happen. It doesn't matter if we are accelerating it.
Same results. Climate change is constantly occurring. Whether a point is reached a few 100 years one way or the other, we still have to adapt.
You nor I didn't make that decision. We evolved and tapped the resources of the earth for our comfort. What are you willing to give up? electricity? The combustion engine? Air travel?
We have made great strides in reducing emissions in the last 50 years. The first totally solar powered community in the US is being built 10 miles from my house. Who is supplying the power? FP&L. I travel the country and there are wind turbines all over the Midwest. Why hasn't the northeast any on the coast in the Atlantic? Oh, that's right. Nobody want to sit on the beach from Maine to Jersey and look at them god forbid.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, is scrambling to create a new energy source. Guess what, it hasn't been found yet. When it is found, it won't change the world over night. Infrastructure improvements take time.
When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years.
It is not going to turn around tomorrow. You can be assured that people way above our pay grade in knowledge are working on making it happen.
As with anything else, there will be consequences. Foreseen and unforeseen as this process evolves.
I am just not a chicken little guy and never will be.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
I'm talking about the origin of the species. We didn't pop up from nowhere 260 years ago. People were on this earth waaaay before 260 years ago.
BMac
You join some new cult I should be aware of or on the lookout for? :)
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Problem is storage. While technology is expanding exponentially, it's not a nut we have cracked yet
You don't think that if I could store enough energy to power my place for a week or so on stored solar energy that is scalable and affordable I wouldn't do it?
I would jump on it in a minute.
The animals have to eat and have water.
Right now I have 2 choices. Propane generator that runs my place with a 1000 gallon buried tank or PTO generator that I can run off the back of my tractor.
I have a small hobby farm. Now think of the people who have to feed the nation. Why do you think windmills are used all over the breadbasket for water supply aver thousands of acres?
It's just not there yet.
Anyone know what NK's clean air and clean water acts are like?
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Like I said, I refuse to be a chicken little. If you don't see the progress we have made over the past 50 or so years, go for it.
And what's your point? People have different opinions?
I think we all know that.
Bulletin, not everyone agrees with you or me. Just the way the world is.
Asshole are like opinions. Everyone has one and they are their own.
So why stop progressing all of the sudden?
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Quote:
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
.
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
Quote:
.
So why stop progressing all of the sudden?
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
If the goal is to discuss climate change those proposals are very relevant. If the goal is to turn this into a blatantly political thread and get it deleted then you might be right.
Quote:
In comment 13443796 732NYG said:
Quote:
.
So why stop progressing all of the sudden?
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
Are you serious?
Not to mention that we already send billions of dollars annually to other countries for reasons less important and less noble that combatting climate change. Give me a break.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
I literally have been saying this entire time that you don't have to buy in 100%. 100% does not exist in this world, but stop pretending like the two sides are equally as bad on this topic because that is objectively false.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
Heh, like half the companies with the largest revenues in the world are oil/energy companies. But yeah, they're balanced out by the failure of Solyndra. The lobbying influence is basically the same for green and fossil fuel sides, obviously.
Quote:
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
I never, ever implied that the science is invalid.
That's a harsh statement
Unless you have been under a rock. Technology is expanding exponentially. That means better extrapolation of data. Anyone who has a grasp of statistics can make the data conform for any theory you put out there.
And be assured it is just a theory because it hasn't come to fruition yet. That there were and are short term fluctuations is expected. Remember, we are talking eons. Hard to grasp.
Is there anyone on the planet who doesn't know that there has been a warming trend for the past 5/6 centuries or so since the mini ice age?
Gore has done more harm talking in absolutes the anyone else. His ridicules claims of everything happening by 2010 was the worst thing you can ever do. Until proven, everything is a theory. If there is a super eruption in the yellowstone basin tomorrow, we won't be talking about global warming for a long while.
The one thing that is certain is that climate change is always occurring and has since the beginning of the planet. There is no denying that. The O2 level has dropped from ~35% to the present 21% over the past 350,000,000 years or so. Way before our involvement. A relatively short period of time also.
Science is always evolving too. Assumptions made on available data ot the time does not make it non valid for that point in time.
I would guess that I look at this in a much bigger picture than most.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
Why I talk in such broad terms. I'm in two habitat restoration groups, a board member of 1, that has an interest in quail habitat on 68,000 acres as well as an adjacent ~100,000 acre parcel. Nevermind all the other stakeholders for the minute The water flow off the property changed when I75 in Fla came through. Fast forward 30 years later and the population is exploding. As growth expands and we are in a drier dry season, reclaimed water is what is used for lawn irrigation. For some reason people think that if you move to fla your lawn needs to be green 12 months out of the year. Anyway, with the expanding of 75 the opportunity came about to reestablish the original water flow. Now we know the wheels of government turn slowly and this has been over 10 years because we are talking a multi jurisdictional state, counties and cities buy in. The process is speeding up because a city desperately needs that water. Might get done in another 10 years which would be extremely quick.
If I see another burn pattern study to see what is best, I will go crazy.
I have seen more studies by research groups for everything under the sun and seen the money spent for it for decades.
What I have found over the past 1/2 century is that every stakeholder has their scientists that specialize in that area to study their concerns, Whether that is compatible with the other stakeholders studies is a complete different quagmire.
None of the science is "wrong".
Now get all the stakeholders to agree to a plan of action?
I have sat in too many meetings for that.
Good luck.
is false.
Statistics can be made to mislead those that don't understand statistics by those that do.
Folks that actually understand statistics know that you cannot make them say whatever you want. You can mislead those that don't understand, but that's pretty much true with anything.
Also to whoever it was that said something about running everything with a steam engine....technically that is where almost all of our electrical energy (outside of some of the newer forms) comes from. Coal, gas, and nuclear are all used to heat water to turn turbines and create electricity. Steam hasn't gone anywhere and isn't anytime soon.
One observation: It's sad that instead of arguing the merits of the data, conclusions, and discussions- that instead everyone is arguing about which side is more "political" or providing "fake news" than the other.
The source of any of the data presented is pretty much irrelevant- either you can defend the data or you can't. Generally attacking the source means you can't.
Anyone know what NK's clean air and clean water acts are like?
Quote:
In comment 13445101 fkap said:
Quote:
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
At the core, it comes down to this: This is going to be a massive problem that can have massive sociopolitical impacts on an international level, never mind the ecological and environmental disasters.
The people that realize this are trying to get people in power to understand this. One political party has made it a point to call into question the science behind climate change, let alone the impacts, and resists efforts to take step to avoid the fate we are facing.