Slashdot Mirror

The earth atmosphere has not warmed for 12-17 years depending on which temperature series you look at.

When you flagrantly cherry pick your data, you can make it prove almost anything you want it to.

(Link heavy...) I think you got the wrong end of the stick, there.

Some studies have been done that show a minimum 30% penetration is possible for *any* region (and this one stopped their modeling at 30%, so its likely higher)...
http://www.renewableenergyworl...

An earlier study from Europe (no link at moment) put the figure around 40%.

Another US study comes in around 45%...
http://arstechnica.com/science...

UK study comes in at >90%...
http://www.gizmag.com/uk-natio...

German study comes in at 100%...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
More on this...
http://www.renewablesinternati...

Some of these show cost savings from adding renewables, another one showed costs rising about 10-15%.

Iowa already got over 25% of power from renewables in 2013; not sure about the mix but I don't recall hydro being a big player there. The state has set a 40% target for 2015!

As for diverse power generation, that is a good rule of thumb, however the non-renewable generators cannot continue to operate in the long-term and nuclear in particular is even worse than variable renewables as the latter has a large correlation with demand curves. Anyone scanning the field for the past few years, however, is getting the idea that a diversity of storage will be at least as important. And there are a LOT of different options. The state of the art in this field has moved completely beyond the 1990s consensus that your post is predicated on.

Hydropower operating permits are up: http://grist.org/news/america-...

In Germany, they have closed a deal with Norway which has vast hydropower resources.

Batteries are considered the least economic storage solution, but I suggest you google "flow batteries". Here are some examples other storage types:

Zynth batteries
http://www.eosenergystorage.co...

Battery EV storage pilot in US
http://www.latimes.com/busines...

Ice bears (cold storage for hot nights)
http://www.renewgridmag.com/e1...

Undersea pumped hydro (you read that right)
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...

Power-to-gas
http://www.nasdaq.com/press-re...

Molten salt
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energ...

Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):

That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?

Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:

...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial

I bet these people also believe Bill Gates' vaccines are for the good of the children...

2007: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.story

2013: http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-gates-foundations-hypocritical-investments/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update&utm_campaign=socialflow

Wake up. You're part of the problem.

Bill Gates is a career criminal

Helmed Microsoft during a period in which it was found to have abused its monopoly position and engaged in other various anticompetitive behaviors, for which he was found personally (partly) culpable. Pardoned by Ashcroft under Bush.

who has hidden his wealth in a charitable foundation which invests the bulk of its money in evil corporations which kill people.[Citation needed]

Long, long ago, there was this citation. But now we also have this newer citation to play with.

This stuff isn't even from naturalnews. You can share it with your friends.

Yes, indeed there is blood on that man's hands.

Remember this blood? It continues to pour.

And now you think you can just undo the sins of your past by eradicating malaria, hunger, and illiteracy? Well, it won't work!

In fact, the Gates foundation will cure none of these things.

Maybe this corn used for ethanol can be used for food again?

Or, at the least animal feed, so the price at the grocery store isn't as bad, and farmers/ranchers are not as pinched as before.

Grain isn't used as food for people. It could be used as food for people, but at least in the United States, it's not. It's used to feed livestock, which is used to feed people and make the people fat.

Here are some numbers. Per capita, each person in the US consumes a total of 1,763 pounds of grain per year. Only 220 pounds of that is for direct food, in the form of bread, pasta, raw grains, etc. The remaining 1500 pounds of grain per person per year is used to feed livestock, and then the people eat the animals.

Contrast that with India, where the average person consumes 440 pounds of grain per year and has very little meat in their diet, almost all of that grain is used directly for food (a little over a pound per day). If 440 pounds of grain can feed a single person for a year, then the 2 billion ton worldwide annual grain harvest can feed a little under 10 billion people. That means that today, right now, we are capable of feeding the entire planet with plenty left over just from grains.

If you want to end world hunger and drive down food prices then it's that simple, everyone would just need to convert to a plant-based diet. But people don't want to end world hunger enough to give up their meat, so this is where we are.

Let us also not forget that high-carbohydrate foods are addictive and fattening, and yet we [Americans] were told by our government that fat is what makes you fat. The same FDA that has claimed that Walnuts are illegal pharmaceuticals on the basis of factual health claims and forced dairy producers who advertise a lack of rBGH/rBST to carry a notice that the FDA has detected no difference in such products even though it is a blatant lie also promoted "diet" foods which were low in fat and high in carbohydrates. The government literally promoted obesity.

Or the fact that vandalizing a pointless website is illegal, but the Koch brothers are regarded as law abiding citizens. The bribery, the environmental damage... if there's anyone out there who could say with a straight face that the justice system is being used by the good against the bad here, I would like to meet such people.

(We can skip the tu quoque arguments about George Soros or Al Gore: I'm not saying those guys are good. We can also skip over the climate change debate.)

The government should *not* subsidize the feel-good needs of the guilt-ridden affluent.

Nor should it subsidize the irrationally car-centric lifestyle of the average American. Remove all the direct and indirect subsidies from gasoline, and when gas hits it true price -- on the order of $13/gallon -- market forces will kill gas-powered cars in no time.

1.) What is the societal cost of cutting energy usage. How much does this cost in comparison to warming. 2.) Explain how using less carbonaceous fuel here will prevent it from being burned there.

Please invent some psychobabble to explain common sense.

You are in stages 5b and 5c on global warming denial: the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

Here you go: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/#Stages%20of%20Denial
You are at Stage 2: "We don’t know why it’s happening" and a bit of Stage 5: "Climate change can’t be stopped"

Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'.

False, and also false.

Medieval mini ice age.

That was a local phenomenon, not global.

The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert

And it takes just one straw to break the camel's back (or one wafer-thin mint to explode Mr. Creosote).

Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference.

Unfortunately, we're melting the ice caps (which reflect radiation back into space), and water vapor creates a temperature feedback. That means as the earth warms, the warming will accelerate.

What caused those hot swampy periods?

Changes in the orbit of the earth.

man has precious little to do with it, if anything.

False.

Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'.

False, and also false.

Medieval mini ice age.

That was a local phenomenon, not global.

The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert

And it takes just one straw to break the camel's back (or one wafer-thin mint to explode Mr. Creosote).

Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference.

Unfortunately, we're melting the ice caps (which reflect radiation back into space), and water vapor creates a temperature feedback. That means as the earth warms, the warming will accelerate.

What caused those hot swampy periods?

Changes in the orbit of the earth.

man has precious little to do with it, if anything.

False.

Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'.

False, and also false.

Medieval mini ice age.

That was a local phenomenon, not global.

The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert

And it takes just one straw to break the camel's back (or one wafer-thin mint to explode Mr. Creosote).

Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference.

Unfortunately, we're melting the ice caps (which reflect radiation back into space), and water vapor creates a temperature feedback. That means as the earth warms, the warming will accelerate.

What caused those hot swampy periods?

Changes in the orbit of the earth.

man has precious little to do with it, if anything.

False.

Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'.

False, and also false.

Medieval mini ice age.

That was a local phenomenon, not global.

The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert

And it takes just one straw to break the camel's back (or one wafer-thin mint to explode Mr. Creosote).

Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference.

Unfortunately, we're melting the ice caps (which reflect radiation back into space), and water vapor creates a temperature feedback. That means as the earth warms, the warming will accelerate.

What caused those hot swampy periods?

Changes in the orbit of the earth.

man has precious little to do with it, if anything.

False.

Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'.

False, and also false.

Medieval mini ice age.

That was a local phenomenon, not global.

The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert

And it takes just one straw to break the camel's back (or one wafer-thin mint to explode Mr. Creosote).

Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference.

Unfortunately, we're melting the ice caps (which reflect radiation back into space), and water vapor creates a temperature feedback. That means as the earth warms, the warming will accelerate.

What caused those hot swampy periods?

Changes in the orbit of the earth.

man has precious little to do with it, if anything.

False.

Isn't Karma a renewable resource?

Oh.. If you replace Nuclear power with (X) whatever X is that's quite a chunk of power to replace. In 2011, according to this Nuclear power in this country produced over 821 billion kWh of power. If you replace that with X, we need to know what that replacement cost should be, right?

How many wind Turbines that kill about 600,000 birds / year including Eagles/Hawks/Owls.
We're not building any more large Hydro projects, and we have drought in most of the country presumably because of global warming.
Large Scale Solar Projects are hit / miss (30 to 40% success range) but they're getting better. So how many square miles of solar panels would we need and where would we put them? I have Solar at my house an 8kW system but it has degradation problems with US built panels. I'm already fighting to get those replaced but if we buy more Photo-Voltaic based Solar, that means we'll pad the pockets of the Chinese, increasing an already voluminous trade deficit.
Coal is an option but we'll never get to 0% CO2 with Coal, are we willing to build more Coal mainline plants to make up for the capacity?
Natural Gas seems to be attractive and the Natural Gas folks think substantially along the lines that most of the new energy in this country over the upcoming decades will by CNG capacity, not Nuclear, not Coal. Natural Gas produces less CO2, but it's not-renewable and it pollutes both on the supply side (fracking etc)
and in the processing. So, there's trade-offs there and costs.

On the Photo-Voltaic side of things, right now current panels are anywhere from 100 to 200 watts per square meter. My panels for example were rated to average 180.. I get a lot of sun where I am but let's just work this out and figure out with COTS technology what it would take.

Figure 150 watts / square meter.
Let's assume it's sunny every day where you put these and you get 6 hours at that production rate (early morning/late afternoon, lets power, sometimes clouds) shorter days/longer days etc. Anyway that's 900 W and with extra time, let's say another 40% for morning/evening etc. 1260 W/day/meter or approximately 1.3 kWh/square meter. That 821 BkWh figure is 24/7/365 but let's assume 60% of that was peak daytime capacity for 1/3 (8 hr/day) and the remaining 40% was for non-peak. I'm just pulling some numbers out here, so you plug in your own. 60% of that 821 BkWh figure comes out to 492.6 BKwh that you'd need during daylight hours. At 1.3 KWh/sq meter/day that's 492,600 square km. or 190,194 square miles. of COTS Photo-Voltaic or an area larger than California. But wait, an area that large is going to have clouds, storms overhead etc. So let's say that it's only on average 70% efficient, that means you'll need another 30% in additional area plus that would include Winter when the days are shorter. Anyway, this could all be put into a spreadsheet but who in California is willing to live in Shade the rest of their lives to supply us with 60% or so of the replacement of our Nuclear Main Line generating capacity? That other 40% of that that generating capacity that can't be by Solar would need to be replaced by Natural Gas, Coal or Wind. Let's say NG is the way you want to go. You'd need 328.4 BkWh in capacity and a typical NG Power Station about 500kWh (Largest in US has about 545 megawatts/day capacity) so 545 MW/day = 545,000 kWh/day

(sorry for the crude scientific notation)
328.4 x 10^9 / 545 X 10^6 = 602 plant operating days. From this. Using Natural Gas, for a kWh takes the burning of .00798 Mcf of gas McF = 1000 cubic feet. So producing 328,400,

If you look at the website of the World Food Prize org, you will find :-

The World Food Prize sincerely thanks the following sponsors for supporting its annual programs: ...
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation DuPont Pioneer John Deere Foundation
The Mathile Institute for the Advancement of Human Nutrition Monsanto DuPont Pioneer
Ruan Transportation Management Systems Claudia and Paul Schickler....

So, Monsanto is one of the sponsors of WFP. A pretty important one too, as shown by this link which used to exist on the Monsanto website.

The World Food Prize Foundation on Friday accepted a $5 million contribution from Monsanto Company to ensure the continuation of the annual World Food Prize International Symposium -- now known as the "Borlaug Dialogue." The funds support a renewed fundraising campaign to transform the historic Des Moines Public Library building into a public museum to honor Dr. Norman Borlaug and the work of the World Food Prize Laureates.

When you look up the WFP website , you will find that "The World Food Prize is sponsored by businessman and philanthropist John Ruan and is located in Des Moines, Iowa."

Not in itself damning, until you realise that :-

Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country

Monsanto has made substantial investments in Iowa

Monsanto actively lobbies to change laws in Iowa

I think its fair to say that Monsanto has a lot of influence in Iowa.

I question the integrity of this "prize".

I guess we could all only eat things grown in a 20 mile radius, but that would be pretty limiting.,

Before Mr. Earl Butz, we did only eat things grown locally. Mr. Butz thought a lot of money could be made shipping our food thousands of miles, and voila we have Big Agribusiness the modern American waistline, diabetes, and increasingly, horse meat in our burgers, carp in our crab, and all the other lovely things to hate about the current very frightening state of our food supply.

Look, I've already said that I am personally convinced in the reality of AGW and that I favor a policy (carbon taxes) that seeks to control it. I also am very interested in science, am a member of several environmental organizations, wrote for an environmental/alt-energy blog and follow a lot of interesting alt-energy companies (for instance, Cool Planet Fuels has a carbon negative fuel cycle and soil amendment process that seems very cool to me).

I simply think that using loaded terms to describe a range of people, from industry shills on one end to people who simply have policy differences on the other, is counterproductive. It alienates people you can work with and just gives ammunition to those you can't.

It's not "paranoid" to point out that newspapers have been running prominent op-eds making the Holocaust denial link for years - Ellen Goodman, George Monbiot, Peter Christoff , Joel Connelly and a host of others. Grist had to issue a retraction for an admittedly stupid piece calling for Nuremberg trials for denialists. Even one Holocaust survivor has jumped on the bus.

I'm a free speech absolutist - if people want to make analogies to Nazis, Stalinists, Pol Pot or the Psychlo Terl from Battlefield Earth, they have every right to do so. But it's the climate equivalent of fan service - it makes a tiny part of your audience cheer and the rest are either confused or roll their eyes...

The oil companies are subsidized by US taxpayers to the total of 20 BILLion dollars a year.

Give that twenty billion to electric battery producers to subsidize their costs, and you'll see $19,0000 cars that get 500 miles per charge. It's all a matter of what we think is a "subsidy".

Yea I can't imagine anything going wrong with that...

Oh, wait, yes I can, because it's happened.

Oil powered cars are subsidized by direct payouts to oil companies for drilling. We don't charge oil companies for the direct damage they do to the planet; that's "external" cost, not slapped on the price of your car. The cost of global warming will be hundreds of trillions. Your car company will not have to pay that. We have gone to war in Kuwait, Iraq, and soon Iran and Africa to secure oil fields, at the cost of trillions; that cost, for decades to come, is carried by taxpayers, and never charged on the pump or in the cost of your car.

I take it, then, that you don't know where the lithium for those batteries comes from, or the environmental damage done in order to make them?

Perspective - it matters.

Oops, links should have been
1) http://soursaltybittersweet.com/content/hfcs-follow-what-rats-princeton-can-and-can%E2%80%99t-tell-us , among others.... it looks like maybe I did misread and that what was not controlled for was how much rat chow they ate. Still a fairly big problem; perhaps the HFCS group ate more chow for whatever reason, either related or unrelated to HFCS.
2) http://grist.org/article/interview-with-princeton-hfcs-researcher-dr-bart-hoebel/

* is the World is warmer than it has been for the last two thousand years? Why is the answer to this question relevant? There are many variables that affect climate (forcing factors). It's entirely possible that we've experienced cooling over the first 1700 of the last 2000 years; that has nothing to do with what degree (ha!) of change we should expect from our cranking CO2 up past any level we've seen in the last 15 million years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx * is the warning of the last three hundreds years (which is undeniable) human induced? You quote Watts. He (unsurprisingly) gets the science wrong: http://grist.org/climate-energy/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/ * why are scientists who use the Scientific Method and go against the narrative being vilified? and 1. Who is being vilified? Names, please, of climate scientists who have been vilified for arguing against AGW. I know of very few -- Lindzen and Singer, perhaps, the latter being entirely deserving of vilification to the point of outright dismissal from the conversation, given his enthusiastic and utterly disingenuous defense of the asbestos and tobacco industries and the former appearing to simply be a contrarian in general. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/ Meanwhile, climate scientists who report that we're headed in a dangerous direction are receiving death threats. No, really: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/battle-over-climate-change 2. Controversial research results are a dream. Anybody who could come up with a data-driven defensible argument disproving AGW would have their career made for them. * global climate models "Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends." Hm. Seems like lots of folks are running tests of current GCMs against paleo data, which undermines if not invalidates your point. http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html#figure4 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/gcm/ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf I know that climate change, as a global problem, is painful for libertarians to consider. However, as Feynman said, nature cannot be fooled. In a battle between physics and philosophy, I bet on physics. Apologies if the formatting is broken in this post; apparently Safari on a Mac doesn't want to insert line breaks.

A lot of people's expectations for the consequences of global warming is the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands, not wide-ranging low-grade economic impacts that risk hundreds of millions in property damage and puts a strain on global food supply.

We're trained to notice disaster, not statistical drift. There will never be the "event" from global warming, which means denial will continue as the costs keep ramping up.

A second dust bowl would be an "event" and it's a possibility if we enter into a many year drought. Hell, Texas alone lost half a billion trees in the current drought and it's at $8 billion and counting. If that drought rolls into next year and they have a dry winter followed by another drought ... well, the topsoil those half billion trees were holding down will be dry and loose. Bad condition worsens and you could be looking at an "event" as meat prices rise in the US.

You might not remember the dirty thirties but my midwestern grandparents talk about it like it was death for everything.

No, we should stop eating meat raised in " a deviant, historically abnormal food and farming system." According to farmer Joel Salatin, "grass grazing herbibores are the foundation of how soil builds: herbivore pruning, perennial disturbance-rest cycles, solar-grown biomass, and decomposition." Without their activities and input -- no veggies! Also, "The rainforest, by the way, is not being cut to graze cattle. It’s being cut to grow transgenic corn and soybeans. North America had twice as many herbivores 500 years ago than it does today due to the pulsing of the predator-prey-pruning cycle on perennial prairie polycultures." http://grist.org/sustainable-farming/farmer-responds-to-the-new-york-times-re-sustainable-meat/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....

Maps and the full article are here.

Is that the discredited NOAA figures http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2 ?

.
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....

Maps and the full article are here.

Richard Muller was never a skeptic, but is a publicity hungry showman. He claimed he was a skeptic so that he could stage a road-to-Damascus style conversion that would play well in the media. Eg check out this interview from 2008: http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/

"The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can’t."

He was critical of Mann's woefully poor hockey-stick analysis just as all scientists and statisticians are, though at least he made those critical comments in public (where most scientists were too afraid of fall-out)

That said his work on BEST (reanalysis of historical global temperatures) is decent science.

I meant to say you should consult Wikipedia if you want to see what Kyoto and Copenhagen require of their signatories.

Just to put some more meat on the bones of this conversation, here's what 4 degree centigrade means to the earth- and remember, that is a number LESS than the one we're on track for today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-would-it-mean-to-treat-climate-change-like-a-security-threat/

The filibuster is far older than that and it used to be even harder to overturn than it is now.

I typoed out the URL to one of the hundreds of charts illustrating when abuse of the filibuster started.

Given what crap gets stymied these days, I really don't see the point of getting rid of filibuster. It works as advertised.

If only it were, for some reason the democrats don't seem to be using the same way as the GOP does. Maybe because if they did, basically nothing would ever pass.

You before: Context matters, context matters, you are taking things out of context so you're dishonest.

Me: Here's a quote with perfect context provided.

You now: "It still looks to me like Gore is refusing to debate the science with Lomborg."

Now, when context is very important, you ignore context.

You didn't provide context, you provided accusations and assertions with no evidence to support them. From the quote, Al Gore is refusing to debate him on the science. The additional context (that I had to go and find) is ambiguous on why he declined to debate Lomborg. There are other possible reasons that the one you have asserted are true, for example, this article asserts that "Debating Lomborg just elevates Lomborg’s nonsense to higher visibility and degrades the larger conversation." Contrary to your assertion, I'm not ignoring context, I'm simply doubting your accusations. If you consider doubting your position to be inherently dishonest, you will never be able to engage in rational debate.

Talk about dishonesty, I didn't say that. I said their treatment of skeptics in ways I showed is dishonest.

That seems to be splitting hairs, as I don't see much difference between accusing someone of dishonesty, and accusing them of acting dishonestly, however point taken, you have only accused them of acting in ways that you characterise as dishonest.

Lomborg (who is, BTW, an extreme leftist by American standards) had been hounding Gore for quite a long time before this incident, trying to get Gore to debate him on the political issue. He was at the time one of Gore's most prominent and well-known opponents. Gore knew who he was and what he stood for. There's even more context for you.

Again, those are assertions. Evidence to support your assertions would do wonders for the credibility of your argument. I disagree with you, so it should be obvious that I'm rarely going accept your arguments unless they are backed by valid evidence. Doing further research myself, I see that you are correct, Lomberg had been hounding Gore for a while, so Gore most likely knew who he was and what he stands for. However, that doesn't prove your accusations:

"The debate is over" not only applies to those who question the science, but also those who question the political prorities. The Debate Is Over. The High Priest Al Gore has ruled. Honest and rational discussion that contravenes the Scriptures is heresy and will not be tolerated.

You have cited Al Gore refusing to debate one person, unfortunately, that does not actually prove any of the accusations you have made.

It was just a matter of having people willing to actually listen to the facts laid out and honestly reevaluate their posiitons based on them. Apparently, that is an ability missing in certain liberals on this forum.

Like I previously said, that is an ability missing from many people on the Internet, in pretty much every group. One which could just as easily be ascribed to you as to the people you disagree with. It is very easy to affix that label to anyone who doesn't accept your position as truth.

When shown you're dishonest and closed-minded, lash out with personal attacks. Well done.

Is calling someone dishonest and closed-minded not a personal attack? You are the one who wrote: "Dishonesty, or at least me being an idiot, must be the cause for the disagreement." I'm merely pointing out, that there one possible reason "the liberals [couldn't] even comprehend the possibility that I could have a rational argument against their beloved causes" is that you may not have presented "rational argument" in a convincing way. You certainly haven't done a very good job of convincing me that you are rational, intelligent or articulate.

Here's a tip, if you

Yea, government regulators have done such a GREAT job keeping Monsanto in check! Oh, wait, no they haven't - they are now in CHARGE!.

It's not "de"-regulation that caused rolling blackouts and the financial crisis. It's the corporate / administrator elites working together to screw the rest of us. And you BUY their crap. Amazing.

Fool. Government elites don't care about you - keep being their happy little human resource, though, I'm sure they'll take real good care of you.

I don't know of any republicans that want to completely abolish the EPA.

I suspect that's because you don't want to know about them.
Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme in G.O.P. Race
Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA
Public Rejects GOP Push to Eliminate EPA
Bachmann pledges to have the EPA's 'doors locked and lights turned off'
GOP on abolishing the EPA

The last link is a video where a number of Republicans are allowed to speak freely about what they think should be done with the EPA.

The problem with warming is that sea level rise will displace millions of people, and droughts can cause starvation. It's not that we have the perfect climate, but the changes that are predicted to happen as a result of warming due to greenhouse gasses have an overall negative impact. You can read the many studies for yourself. If you want a quick review you can start here or here.

they eat corn alright, as does most of the world, in the form of processed food. You find corn derivatives in a bewildering varieties of industrial foods.

You imply that the French, and indeed the rest of the world, eat significant amount of processed food. It's difficult to get hard data on this, but my impression (from having lived there) is that processed food is a much smaller part of their diet than in the US. This article says that Americans eat rather more processed food than other countries, but it's difficult to compare because "baked goods" and "ready-to-eat" in the US and in France are rather different.

On the other hand, "most of the world" is certainly not eating significant amounts of industrial food - in China and India it's almost unheard of.

No I did not. Go back and read it again. I'm well aware of positive feedback loops. The GP on the other hand tried to claim that humans cause more GW by putting emitting water vapor than we do by putting CO2 in the air. That's false because water vapor falls out of the air before contributing to warming. That is why water vapor is not considered in the models as a forcer.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/

Why would non-organic strawberries have a longer shelf life? They're the same plant. The difference is in how the strawberry is grown, not in the final product, unless there's a pesticide residue on the fruit when you get it. In which case I'd think you'd want the organic one. As it turns out, BTW, the pesticide most commonly used on strawberries, methyl bromide, does stay on them. Also, organic strawberries are actually *more* resistant to rot than conventional strawberries.

Why not use the wind energy to make hydrogen, and store the hydrogen (as a gas, as a liquid, or in metal hydrides)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

Or why not use the wind to make compressed air, and store the compressed air?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Or why not use the wind to charge batteries?
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/GRIDS/ARobustandInexpensiveIronAirRechargeableBat.aspx

Or why not use the wind to heat up molten salts, and use a steam turbine to make power? Solar does it, but so could wind:
http://grist.org/solar-power/2011-07-05-groundbreaking-solar-plant-in-spain-generates-24-hours-of-power/

Or why not use the wind energy to produce liquid synthetic fuels from carbon from the air?
http://www.staxera.de/announcement.105+M5320325207d.0.html?&L=1

Or why not use the wind energy to run energy-intensive industrial processes that can run intermittently (like grinding up rocks for fertilizer or chilling nitrogen out of the air)? And so on.
http://www.remineralize.org/

There are solutions for the lack of buffers for renewable energy. Put them all together, and you have a way to use wind.

That said, LENR and cheap solar panels seem more likely to succeed, one because it is compact (if it really works) and the other because it has now moving parts and requires little maintenance.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/01/15/0226219/can-nasa-warm-cold-fusion
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

"A Road Not Taken: Solar Panels, Jimmy Carter, and Missed Opportunities for Change "
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/06/a-road-not-taken-solar-panels-jimmy-carter-and-missed-opportunities-for-change
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/09/obama-no-thanks-to-carter-solar-panels

The true cost of fossil fuels:
http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/true-cost-fossil-fuels.html
"For decades now, fossil fuel company executives and D.C. politicians have worked together to ensure that coal and oil prices stay low enough to keep the American people hooked. In his new book Greedy Bastards, Dylan Ratigan explains how "vampire industries" like oil and coal have forged "an unholy alliance with government based not just on the money that they contribute to political campaigns and spend on lobbying but on their ability to hypnotize us with false prices." Industry gets tax breaks, subsidies, military support in volatile regions, the right to use our air and water like a sewer, and assurance that the government will clean up its environmental messes. Politicians get campaign contributions, a steady flow of dirty energy, and a talking point to brandish about how they kept gas affordable. But the Ame

It used to be that if your cattle came onto my land, it's your fault... now Monsanto says, and the courts seem to back them that if your seed gets onto my land, it's my fault... I find this round-up ready crap disgusting... and corn that is classified as a pesticide? FFS, it's gonna backfire on us. I have numerous garden beds now, adding more every year on my small lot. This year I made a hoop house and was able to grow lettuce, cabbage, raddish, carrots and a few other things all winter..it was an experiment so it wasn't like I could feed my family solely on this food, but maybe on day we'll get there. I have 7 chicks that are 3 days old that will now be backyard laying chickens for eggs. I put in a mini-orchard (apple, blueberry bushes, grape, and avocado) now and three citrus trees potted that come in the house under lights in the winter... This is partially an attempt to be a little more self-sufficient and teach my children about where food really comes from and teach them that they can grow/raise it and that it's work, but worth it. And a big part of knowing where our food is coming from and what is going into it.

here is a good link http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/no-thats-not-snow-pesticides-coat-californias-central-valley/

and here is a list of some of the seeds that most gardeners don't realize are Monsanto seeds, I didn't and have grown some of the tomatoes and stuff year after year in the past... doesn't mean the are GMO, but I don't want to support Monsanto in any way shape or form as I am opposed to patenting of seeds, extermintation of seeds to corner markets, and their general operating methods. The people in the US are so ignorant.

http://www.agardenforthehouse.com/2012/02/forewarned-is-forearmed-veggie-varieties-owned-by-monsanto/

Watch Food Matters... it's on a popular streaming service

Hey, cave dude, everything always changes try to keep up http://grist.org/list/ev-battery-breakthrough-to-halve-cost-triple-range/. Get over fossil fueler, eventually you won't be given a choice, you selfishness will just be banned.

Most cities are installing magnetic sensors at intersections to reduce "stupid stoplights", as you put it.

How do such cities handle cyclists? There are some induction sensors in my home town that I can't trip with my bike even if I lay it all the way down, and unlike Kansas and Idaho, Indiana doesn't appear to have a "dead red" or "malfunctioning signal" statute that allows smaller vehicles to proceed against a red light if the signal has clearly failed to detect the vehicle.

The northwest passage has always been a viable trade route. Anyone who things otherwise has been listening to warmists spout off that we've never used it. I'll give you three guesses as to why Canada and Russia have so many ice breakers up there.

I'm talking about shipping savings by sending unassisted regular old plain jane commercial ships without breakers or breaker escorts.
See this. (Circe 2008, fairly recently in terms of open-waters shipping history)

Fast and loose with the evidence and you quote THAT crap? Fuck me.

Lets see, how many citations do ya want?

This...

Scientists from other universities have been threatened as well. One scientist told The Canberra Times, ''If you want to find me, it's impossible unless you make an appointment, sign in with some form of photo identification, and are personally escorted to my door That's directly as a result of threats made against me.''

One researcher told the paper of an instance where her photo appeared in an article promoting a community tree-planting day -- she then received threats of sexual assault and violence against her children. Another scientist received death threats and was advised by police to install a ''panic button'' in his office.

or this, where the fucking threat is on video?
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/another_day_another_death_thre_1.php

Anger against scientists involved in the climate debate is reaching dangerous levels and it's only a matter of time before one is murdered, says leading German physicist Hans Schellnhuber. ...

While he was opening a recent climate conference in Melbourne, a man in the front row waved a noose at him. "I was confronted with a death threat when I gave my public lecture," Professor Schellnhuber said.

"Somebody got to his feet and showed me a rope with a noose.

"He showed me this hangman's rope and he said: 'Mr Schellnhuber, welcome to Australia'.

http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-06-12-death-threats-for-australian-climate-scientists

A quick search reveals much more evidence than one denialist blog.

Are you really as inane as you come across with such rubbish?

Show me any death threats made by those who believe the science agaist those that dont,

Try and cite something vaugely credible.....

That's nice, except that he published a book in 2008 that suggested that one of the challenges facing the next President was to confront global warming and in the 1980s he resigned from the Sierra Club because they opposed what he viewed as the only energy option available to fight man-made global warming, nuclear power.
So, in 2011 he started giving out quotes to sound like he was not a true believer, after close to 3 decades of being a promoter of the theory.

Um, hello -- Muller's backing of Soon and Balinuas? And there's lots of others, too. He's stuck up for denier papers pretty consistently.

OK. Read this article. In it, Muller says:

Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

I don't care what papers he backed and what papers he didn't. He was a global warming supporter in the 80's when he quite the Sierra Club and still that way when he did the interview in the link as recently as 2008. That's 1 year before this "Global Warming Skeptic" started the study that this very article is about. He had his reasons for backing whatever studies he backed, but being a GW Skeptic is not one of them. Read his own words.

The prominent skeptic in question was the author of the research that was revealed last week.

Title of the TFA: Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

The problem is that the supposed skeptic is not a skeptic at all. Here is what he said in 2008:

The bottom line is that there is a consensus -- the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] -- and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can't. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we're responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don't cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.

I'm not a climatologist. All I can base my opinion on is what I read and what I make of what I read. On one side, I see global warmongers saying that those that don't believe in Global Warming are flat-earthers and science obviously proves that GW is happening and it's all man's fault. On the other side, I see "skeptics" claiming that Global Warmongers are government supported scientists looking for grants and anti-capitalists looking to gain power. Who is telling the truth?

I find it really difficult to believe that Global Warming believers are telling me the truth when they trot out guys like this claiming that a skeptic has seen the light and all who are non-believers should follow his lead. After all, who can give a more non-biased story than a climate skeptic to begin with, right. The problem is, as I've stated, is that this guy was NEVER a climate skeptic and those that say he was are lying to my face. Why should I believe anything else the warmongers tell me?

More:

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

Yeah... This guy is no "skeptic". Why do the Global Warming believers need to lie to me if the science is as solid as they say it is?

The problem is that Richard Muller was never a global warming skeptic. He was talking about the "need to address man-made global warming" back in the 1980s. In 2008, he wrote a book,"Physics for Future Presidents", advising either John McCain or Barack Obama to prepare to address man-made global warming. This whole story is a fraud. The guy is claiming that he used to be a global warming skeptic, yet, he has been preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming pretty much as long as anyone.

Which is in essence what the complaint is about. The Chinese government is not playing by the same rules the rest of the world is playing by.

This complaint is about the Chinese investing $30 billion in solar energy subsidies. How much have Germany and the U.S. invested in green energy subsidies? More in absolute terms, much more in per-capita terms (but, interestingly, still less than the subsidies for oil or nuclear power).

I'll just point out the corresponding lack of sea level rise.

Because the current sea level and sea level change is uniform around the globe?

Wrong.