Slashdot Mirror
Cleaner Air Could Speed Global Warming
Hugh Pickens writes "Scientists estimate that the US Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant, sulfate aerosols, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems. But NPR reports that this good news may have a surprising downside: cleaner air might actually intensify global warming. One benefit of sulfates is that they've been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Researchers believe greenhouse gases such as CO2 have committed the Earth to an eventual warming of roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit, a quarter of which the planet has already experienced. But thanks to cooling by aerosols starting in the 1940s, the planet has felt only a portion of that warming. And unlike CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols last in the air for a week at most, so cutting them would probably rapidly accelerate global warming. The author of 'Hack the Planet' says: 'As we take away that unexpectedly helpful cooling mask, we're going to be facing more global warming than we expected.'"
I'm getting pretty tired of everything causing/amplifying global warming. We're fucked, we get it it!
If we are to err, I'd rather we erred on the side of clean air than polluted air.
First they say using more paper is good for the environment now this. I can't wait till a study says fish with more mercury are healthy for you.
We tried all kinds of shit to satisfy your mythical existence and you just keep on whining. Going to buy two cases of Aqua-Net right now and spray em all night long.
Climate change scientists have now resorted to trolling us.
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up. As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks. Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
KTHXBAI.
--
BMO
why don't you globally warm them?
Come to think of it, it could be bad for us but not for the planet since it had been worse before.
It is a little know fact that, given the uncertainties of what is happening in our climate system, the warming seen over the last few decades is entirely attributable to the reduction in aerosols in recent years. This is mentioned in WGI chapter 2 of the IPCC report. Of course, that fact didn't make it into the "Summary for Policy Makers." In fairness I should mention that the chances of the temperature change being entirely attributable to the change in aerosols is actually quite low, but it's still something worth considering.
Qxe4
...before someone interprets this as "Global Warmers Demand Dirty Air"?
Shit, already happened. Gotta love spinning.
I actually heard an interview with this guy the other day. His point is not that we need to stop cutting pollution, it does cause a lot of respiratory diseases and various other forms of environmental damage.
it's just another effect that needs to be taken into account.
His thing is geo-engineering though, so his take is that this means we must start geo-engineering now.
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up. As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks. Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
This will probably sound wrong, or at least politically incorrect but... Cleaner air can speed global warming while still killing everyone who suffers from asthma.
Natural facts don't usually care about consequences on human health.
So, I think you're point should be more oriented towards something like: "The fact that cleaner air, which we need, may have a cooling effect, should only make us fight much stronger against the original sources of the warming itself."
Wasn't exactly this story on here yesterday or something? Or was this $something_else is also causing global warming?
And why hasn't anyone noticed that the next ice-age is due soon, and maybe it might be a good idea to do something about it?
I didn't see anyone saying that we should start pumping aerosols into the atmosphere again. They're just saying it will have an effect. Would you prefer scientists that pretend nothing good ever has a downside?
I believe this was observed during the moratorium on air flight in the two days after 9/11. I don't think it speeds global warming. Its is just a constant temperature drop if you take away pollution.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So clearly the only answer to climate change is Repressive Legislation. Substance doesn't matter, as long as it sucks.
There's so much confusion about global warming now I feel like just telling people to shut up for 10 years until they get their stories straight. And maybe pick a different name. I just read an article that global warming isn't really a good description of what's going to be going on. Supposedly. Now, some air pollution causes global warming but also air pollution prevents global warming, so what? huh?
Also don't forget that global warming will cause an ice age.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
>His thing is geo-engineering though
OH YEAH NOW I REMEMBER. *smacks forehead*
I did hear part of that broadcast! I kept swearing at him! He's the king of "what could possibly go wrong?"
He's a troll. No question about it. We don't know enough to do geo-engineering and anything we do know puts us in the position of "knowing just enough to be a danger to ourselves." It's like understanding Maxwell's Equations and suddenly deciding to troubleshoot a substation.
And one of his points was once we start, we can't possibly stop doing it because the effect will go away. He forgets that John Martin was using his best Dr. Strangelove accent while saying "give me half a tanker of iron and I'll give you an ice age."
Yo, dude, John Martin was ONLY KIDDING!
The fact he got actual airtime on NPR makes me angry.
--
BMO
To paraphrase George Carlin, the planet has been here for what? 4 and a half billion years, and we've been here a hundred thousand years, maybe 200 thousand. And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200.
Do the math. If the entire age of the Earth was reduced to one calendar year, when did humans appear?
December 31st, 11:59pm.
The planet isn't going anywhere.
*** WE ARE. ***
So why does this get reported but not this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7601929/Climategate-a-scandal-that-wont-go-away.html I think the fact that up to 1/3 of the claims in the IPCC report may be utter bullshit is rather more relevant to the debate then some nonsense about clean air speeding up global warming. Disclaimer: I know certain emissions slow global warming. Chill out.
IANAS but to the best of my knowledge sulfur aerosols also trigger a complex chemical reaction with notorious pollutant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) that generates chlorine monoxide (ClO) which destroys ozone.
Destroying ozone is bad? Right? Or scientists would say otherwise? May be that's the major reason why scientists didn't recommend to trigger volcano eruption to negate greenhouse effect back in 90s? Now there're scientists told me aerosols are good? I'm not sure whom to trust anymore.
Anyone would help me citing are welcome, as I've already transformed the corresponding references into carbon dioxide which joined the greenhouse gas party in the heaven.
it's not a correlation you numbskull, it's a demonstrated cause.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This has been well known science for many decades. Since long before the media cared about it. So I doubt it is a media scare or Climate change trolls.
I don't think anyone is arguing we repeal the clean air act or anything like that. We all like breathing. Also it really wouldn't help. It'd be like if your house caught fire and to avoid death you go to another room. Sure it helps you ignore the problem a few minutes at best, but you aren't doing fuck all to put out the fire. (apologies for the shitty analogy, where is BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?)
It doesn't imply non-causation either, so the connection is still something worth considering, which is all the parent said. *un-sigh*
I never thought I'd say this, but...HIRE A GODDAMN PR CONSULTANT ALREADY! I hate PR bullshit...I really do...but honestly, after arguing myself blue in the face with my right-wing relatives that environmentalism transcends politics and just because I like clean air and a healthy earth, doesn't make me a commie, publishing a single report that wildly contradict previous findings makes it practically impossible to defend you. I understand the unwillingness to hold back data/findings because of politics, but even a rookie PR guy will warn you about the dangers of publishing a single report that purportedly negates all previous recommendations.
I'm not asking you to cover up findings and/or only publish reports that further your political agenda...just to maybe take the findings of the experiment a few steps further - run several more tests to ensure the validity of the findings, and then propose reasonable recommendations for future policy.
Simply leaving the conclusion of the report at "Sorry guys, you know how we told you that we were all going to die if we don't outlaw sulfate aerosols? Yeah, well, we were wrong, and it turns out now we're really fucked up" is just like throwing handfuls of painkillers at Rush Limbaugh's mouth.
That would be exactly the scientists point.
Yeah fuck statistics and the scientific method too. All I need is my truthyness to lead the way, if I know it in my gut to be true then who is stats to say otherwise.
The reason we sigh is because your point is fucking stupid. The IPCC has scientists involved that know statistics one would assume. This has been worked out. Unless you are saying the temperature magically changes over time which causes a variety of things to change, like the sun's brightness and seasons or even day/night as causes of the temperature.
Seriously? You DO realize just how petty you sound. Right? Facts don't change their truth value just because they piss you off or inconvenience you. The universe really couldn't give a shit whether or not you have asthma, or whether or not you choked and died because of it.
Seriously? You think this is the climate change guys trolling? Why doesn't it suggest a polluter who wants to go back to the cheap & dirty way of doing things?
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Dumb paper: it's been known for decades. Without that knowledge the increase in temperatures in the 70's couldn't be explained. GCMs already use particulates to model the climate and have done so since before Hansen's 1980 model.
And so what? The residence time of aerosols means that you only integrate the last week or two's output, so all you've done is delay warming AS LONG AS YOU KEEP POLLUTING. CO2 integrates over centuries.
Eminently put. The planet is not in trouble, global warming or not. The planet has been much hotter and much colder, with significantly different atmospheric conditions (higher CO2, higher O2, vastly different contents pre-O2, etc), not to mention the continents that have been in vastly different positions. In fact, the time we are living in is comparably speaking an anomaly. For most of the time since the Earth was formed, there has been no ice on this planet whatsoever.
So the Earth is absolutely not in trouble. We, on the other hand, might be in trouble. If the worst predictions of the climate scientists become reality, sea level rises may destroy a lot of our fixed infrastructure, such as cities. Humanity will likely survive, but life wouldn't be as easy as now.
If we are to err, I'd rather we erred on the side of clean err than polluted err.
Something to look forward to; one day the currencies of the western world will collapse under a mountain of public debt. For a time there will be no money to fund this climate dreck and these government funded, navel-gazing professional email writers will have to find actual jobs.
Scientists don't say anything is "good" or "bad" in their capacity as scientist. They just trace cause and effect, then find an explanation. That IS science. Current science does support GW, and it's a well known fact that sulfurous aerosols provide a cooling effect. If it weren't for the fact that we discovered, and then used the shit out of CFCs, they would be all beneficial, no downside, but we lacked the foresight to do so, because the data just wasn't there.
So yes, science does indicate one thing, and then another, but it is not for the reasons you have ascribed, It is because we have a very incomplete picture, and until it is complete, we can only give a best guess. But you know what? Even if it's imperfect, it's better than flying blind!
Fortunately, due to the marvellosu analytical tool that is the scientific method, our best guess will always be getting better and better.
Aerosols reflect more shortwave energy then they absorb in the longwave, contributing to a net negative forcing in the climate system. With a reduction in aerosol concentration, we'll have additional warming. This is a no-duh scientific principle that has been supported by direct instantaneous observations, versus the projected "future climates" based on model results that are not nearly as reliable, since they still rely on parameterizations of physical processes that we may or may not have a handle on. While the US Clean Air Act has really helped the air around us, with the industrialization of China and India (and lack of pollution controls) the net global effect may be minimal. That's the interesting thing to realize, as our industry gets cleaner, China gets as dirty as Cleveland in the 1920s and Detroit when there used to be industry.
"If we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound," Kintisch writes in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times. Kintisch isn't talking about greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide; he's talking about another kind of pollutant we put in the sky -- "like aerosols from a spray can," he tells NPR's Guy Raz. "It turns out that those particles have a profound effect on maintaining the planet's temperature." Greenhouse gases and aerosol pollutants work in opposing ways on the Earth's climate, Kintisch explains. "The greenhouse gases warm the planet when they're emitted, because they absorb heat reflected up from the ground -- the greenhouse effect. These aerosols, though, do the opposite. They block sunlight, they make clouds more reflective -- and by doing that, they actually cool the planet. "The problem is that we're cutting the cooling pollution as we make our air cleaner," he says. Some scientists, he says, are confident that this is connected to global warming, but they don't know how large the effect is. "That's the frightening thing, because if it's a big cooling effect, it means that we've been actually warming the planet more than we know," Kintisch says. "As we take away that unexpectedly helpful cooling mask, we're going to be facing more global warming than we expected.
BINGO!
...and it is unintelligible.
And so you're worthless. The earth existed without you for billions of years, so why bother keeping you healthy, just close the hospitals and save money. Humanity never made a difference to the earth anyway, so fixing them is a waste of time.
Actually there are scientists that have proposed exactly that. They want to pump sulfur compounds into the atmosphere, including. When I heard this, also on NPR, I wanted to scream, "What about acid rain you stupid fuckers!?" Of course the cost/benefit ratio is presented as favorable... in terms of percentage of GDP v. possible projected cost of dealing with property damage. There was no mention of ecology, public health or economic harm from acidification of the oceans or fresh water systems.
Listening to NPR has become an exercise in tedium at times. It's not as bad as listening to the fat, bald, 'recovering' drug addict that the Tea Baggers wanted to install as the titular head of the Republican party, but sometimes it's close.
Climate change scientists have now resorted to trolling us.
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up.
It would be nice if it were simple, wouldn't it? If we could just say "pollution bad, stopping pollution all good effects."
Grow up. Reality is often quite a bit more complicated than we'd like it. Wshat seem like mixed messages mirror that. Cholesterol can be good and bad, different types. People shouldn't use heroin, but for a small subset of users, sudden withdrawal can actually cause death. Antibiotics kill bacteria in an infected patient, but if you dump in enough drugs to kill all the bugs at once the patient could also die because of an immune response to a chemical released by the dying bacteria.
It's entirely possible that some pollutants are currently having good effects, and when we clean up our act things will get worse before they get better. Shooting the messengers is an immature response.
Anyway, this business about this pollutant countering global warming has been known since the early 90's at least. It's not like the scientists just suddenly made this up, you just weren't paying attention until it showed up on slashdot.
Dear Science Community,
Okay, so this isn't immediately clear to anyone, not even me. But reading the article, it seems this information comes from one man, Eli Kintisch. Googling around, it looks to me like he's not a practicing scientist, and while he seems to understand science, it seems his main occupation is selling books.
I think that the science community (if you mean scientists) has remained very silent about the total effect of aerosols because those are not known well enough to make announcements. Meanwhile, everybody else is doing all they can to get media attention, and media jumps at the chance.
It's unfortunate. Besides, scientists are not interested in explaining stuff to the public (who won't understand their favorite intricacies anyway), and they have better things to spend their time with than arguing with laymen. Many times it even happens that scientists actually publish something, and then media reports it widely out of context. What to do, then?
Well, actually scientists already have something like a PR consultant. It's the IPCC. Through IPCC, climate scientists make well thought-out packages of information that are based on old findings and reject the newest and the uncertain. New information can be found in scientific literature, but that's not even readable for laymen.
And if you don't know what is scientific literature, then you've probably never seen it ;-).
Was done many years ago and proved this point, tell us something we shouldn't have all known years ago.
Then again I guess anything helping bring awareness to the tarded masses (sorry slashdot) is good.
I hate to add any more complexity to this but http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8013709.stm it seems like plants like some of this pollution too :)
So we have this highly complex system called earth climate. we started to manipulate it on a global scale in recent centuries (e.g. CO2-emissions) without any clue what it might cause to this system. And now, just when we start to think about possible consequences of our doing in the last decades - now comes someone and demands to manipulate from a different angle (here: aerosols) on a global scale and poorly understood as well. duh. How intelligent is that? I have this picture in my mind of some monkeys finding a dud. Out of ignorance they started to hit it with sticks and stones - and when they suddenly recognise a ticking sound from the inside some smart monkey demands "let's also try to burn it. maybe the ticking goes away". Sounds reasonable, does it not?
I knew Bush was smarter than he seemed, that's why he passed the NSR rollback initiative, he must have known all that extra pollution (aerosols) would actually impede global warming... and here I was thinking he was just doing it to help business at the expense of my health and the environment.
You should look a little more into the information instead of your feelings. Don't get so upset just because something isn't what you wanted to hear.
This information has been discussed for over a decade now. It is called Global Dimming. There is a great video on Nova about it if you want to learn.
Cleaner air is bad for the planet?
Good and bad isn't as one-dimensional as that. Things that are good for one thing, may turn out to be bad for something else. Alcohol, for example, is good for your heart and blood pressure, but bad for your liver. Same thing with some kinds of pollution. Some kinds of pollution may block some of the sun's rays from entering our atmosphere, which slows global warming. But then again, they may hurt the ozone layer, causing more skin cancer.
There have been several documentaries about Global Dimming, and it seems one of them is available on Google Video. Check it out.
I agree that the planet itself in not in trouble. However the current ecosystem is in a bit of peril, some say that we're currently living through the 6 great extinction of earth, but iirc the jury is still out on that one. ;-)
Anyway, nothing like a global spring cleaning once in a while!
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
What's the fucking point you are trying to make? The global dimming effect is known for years. This is no news to me at all. Only ostriches with their heads in the sand have missed this.
Every agricultural society that relies on open irrigation (canals, not pipes underground) measures every single day how much water evaporates per unit surface in direct sunlight. For decades. They noticed the decreased intensity of the sunlight already in the 60's and 70's. In Israel, Russia, Greece and basically everywhere, where someone cared to measure.
The effect is twofold - on one hand you have "gray optical filter". On the other, sooth particles in the air on altitude where clouds are forming act as "seeds" for droplet generation and shift the droplet size distribution towards bigger droplets, thus changing (positively) the reflective properties of the clouds, i.e. more light is reflected back in space. Add to that the effect of the aircraft trails, which we seem to have underestimated.
And for the other AC idiot above , read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
I really tired of people pushing their delusions, desires, anxieties, laziness and so onto reality. WE ALL ARE GOING TO HELL because of you , idiots, who do not live in the real world. Wake up, for crying out loud!!!
I'm sure you already know then that most of the IPCC was written by politicians, not scientists. And most of those scientists don't have a degree in mathematics, or statistics. But then again I'm just point out the obvious.
Om, nomnomnom...
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up. As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks. Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
Yeah, it is. I actually lectured on this last Thursday (and tomorrow). The Clean Air Act is responsible in part for the spike in temperatures we got after, well, the Clean Air Act. Particulate matter is responsible for about a -0.3c to -0.5c temperature forcing (though it varies quite a bit when you get things like Pinatubo blowing off), and have been decreasing steadily in the last 40 years. I'm not saying belching smokestacks were a good thing, but a lot of the bullshit worry over global warming came as a result of temperature reaching a higher equilibrium from lowered particulate count as well as forcing from higher CO2 levels (which have contributed about +0.8C in forcing since the late 1800s. The actual numbers are doubled, but the oceans act as a buffer for a lot of the heat, so you only expect to see about half the gain from the forcings.
So yeah, the Greens are responsible for Global Warming: the Clean Air Act, the SUV, and the massive CO2 output from energy production are all so-called "environmentalists" fault.
Citations available upon request. My presentation is about 60 slides, for two days of lecture.
See for example:
BBC__Horizon__2005.01.13__Global_dimming
In a nutshell: cleaner air will give even higher temperatures which means the warming by increased greenhouse gasses is in fact worse than what you might expect by naive interpretation of the temperature data.
Trying to pollute the atmosphere (or not clean it up) because of this would give all sorts of other problems.
And as to this guy:
No, they are not trolling. They are in fact saying the problem of global warming is worse than you might think. But as I said, this is NOT news.
Citations available upon request. My presentation is about 60 slides, for two days of lecture.
Considering how the denialists tend to be in the "free market will take care of it" and the "ohnoes, the economy" camp I'd humbly suggest you charge some serious money for your presentation.
After all, any document that hasn't been bought isn't worth reading, right? ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
They're probably right, however you've got to start somewhere when to fix something people usually make a mes, we can do nothing and continue to make it worse or make a mess and fix the problem. There is no way fixing something without making a mess and the longer you wait the bigger the mess you make fixing it.
Especially you -- you seem to be an oil industry troll. I mean:
look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age
Meh.
>>However the current ecosystem is in a bit of peril, some say that we're currently living through the 6 great extinction of earth, but iirc the jury is still out on that one.
Yeah. While species are going extinct, it's not the "10,000 species a day going extinct" bullshit I heard every time I went to the San Diego Zoo back in the 1980s. The study for that number was based on insect surveys. They dug up a 10 meter square patch of earth, counted the species, then counted them again the next year. Stag horn beetles moved 30' away? They're extinct!
It's one of those memes that everyone knows, but doesn't know just how badly that number was derived.
The actual number of species going extinct is actually very hard to calculate, but it's nowhere near these humans-are-evil numbers tossed around by tree huggers. Just by way of reference, there's only a million animal species or ten on the planet. If these numbers were true, there'd be negative 90 million species left by today.
The thing is, the air you're breathing is down here - which is where the vast majority of pollution is created. The sun-blocking sulphur compounds need to be up there. A fact which is clearly not mentioned at all in TFS.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The author of 'Hack the Planet' says: 'As we take away that unexpectedly helpful cooling mask, we're going to be facing more global warming than we expected.'
...along with more CO2-scrubbing photosynthesis caused by more sunlight reaching the the ground. Did he not consider this?
Where does it say that? Did you even read the summary or TFA?
Do you mean hell as in, it stinks of sulfur, and it's *STILL* too warm to live :-) ?
In the 1970s, the Ecomentals wouldn't stop shrieking all air pollution triggering an ice age, ZOMG MUST FIX NOW!!!!!!1!!!
There's nothing surprising about Doomsayers saying Doom. The world is just about to end, always has been, always will be.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
www.rocketscientistsjournal.com - puts man-made global warming theorists to shame.
And monkeys MIGHT fly out of your a$$.
>>It would be nice if it were simple, wouldn't it? If we could just say "pollution bad, stopping pollution all good effects."
Indeed. When lecturing on AGW last Thursday, it was amusing when my students asked if the volcano erupting was good or bad for the environment.
The simple fact is that there's no simple answer. If you're an endangered bird who only nests on whatever-the-hell that volcano is, you're pretty much fucked. If contrails from airplanes have a cooling effect, then grounding a bunch of planes might warm the atmosphere. The particulate matter will slightly cool the atmosphere. If you're a specialized form of algae that eats volanic ash in saltwater, it might be great for you, but terrible for the fish nearby.
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid. They simply don't understand that every choice is always a mixture of pros and cons, good effects and bad effects and side effects. Their mindset (based on the precautionary principle) is that if ANYTHING is negative about an option, they must file a lawsuit and get it banned.
This has led to:
1) A ban on nuclear power here in California. 40% of America's CO2 comes from coal and gas energy plants - if we'd gone nuclear since the 70s we'd have not killed tens of thousands of people (what? people die from coal?), and met every CO2 target out there, beyond Copenhagen or the farcical disaster that is Kyoto.
2) The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.
3) Demolition of hyrdoelectric dams. (What? Hydro is a green source of energy!? But fish are friends, not food!) Spending $300M to blow up two hydro plants seems like a good investment, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwha_Ecosystem_Restoration)
4) The introduction of the SUV. CAFE killed the station wagon, but idiot legislation can't kill demand for a product. So we no longer have the wood-paneled station wagon (1972 Country Squire: 18MPG) and now have the most Green-hated thing ever, the SUV (2009 Nissan Armada: 14 MPG).
5) The Clean Air Act lowering particulate counts, as the article says. Not that Clean Air is a bad thing - I certainly wouldn't want to live next to one of those belching, polluting smokestacks. (Like the cooling tower on a nuclear plant, like idiot wunderkind Al Gore showed in an Inconvenient Truth, but I digress.) But it does reduce the "protective" cooling effect particulate matter has in the atmosphere.
As long as idiot Greens continue thinking in all-or-nothing terms, they'll continue making decisions that are horribly bad both for the environment and for the economy.
What bad data? The Hockey Stick is made to look less warm because GOOD data was added. The original data was from a NW Europe data only study. This is not a good set of data for a GLOBAL phenomenon.
The bad data is the data that you have that says the hockey stick is wrong.
And then you complain when the scientists condemn you and your dittos for promoting it...
Sigh. First paragraph: They don't. No, he didn't. No, it wouldn't. Yes, they have. I'd post links, but you didn't, so why bother.
It could be that when "almost all the climate scientists support the use of known bad tree rings", they actually disagree that they are bad, you know. And unlike Exxon, climate science is not a monolithic for-profit corporation with perverse incentives with regard to pollution.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Presuming you mean the IPCC report (it's not good form to go around writing on committees): No it wasn't. And yes, it was. Maybe, but there's a lot of both in the kind of degrees they have.
I'm just pointing out the obvious, too.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
You do know that the IPCC wasn't made of any politicians. Oh, no, apparently you didn't. And why should statisticians be on a PHYSICS SCIENCE REVIEW??? Oh, that's right: because you don't like the science.
MOD PARENT UP!
Hey, could everyone please stop using words like "denialists" and "deniers" to describe those who believe concerns about anthropogenic global climate change are overstated? Labels like "denier" really don't foster open and thoughtful discussion, and it shows a certain contempt for independent thought. Let's attack and defend ideas, not people.
There are lots of idiot "deniers" (the Fox News viewer) and idiot "believers" (the California soccer mom saving the planet with her Prius). If we're trying to have a productive discussion about A-GCC, these people should be ignored, since they only rile people up and make them forget about the important details
For those "believers" out there looking to challenge their own views, there are some thoughtful "denier" arguments about A-GCC that you should read. The "believers" out there have an intellectual duty to read them, just as "deniers" have an obligation to contemplate arguments from "believers". If you're on a "side" with A-GCC, you're probably doing it wrong, because the scientific method isn't about picking sides.
Here's an excellent speech from a well-known "denier".
*Disclaimer: I personally don't know what the hell's going on with A-GCC, and I don't think anyone really does. I have seen thoughtful, analytical, convincing arguments from "believers" and "deniers" alike. I have also smelled a lot of money getting involved on both "sides", which makes me even more hesitant to trust anything I read. The oil industry is on the "denier" side, and Goldman Sachs is on the "believer" side. I don't know which I trust less.
The planet isn't going nowhere .
*** WE ARE. ***
Fixed that for you.
"Climate change scientists have now resorted to trolling us."
Climate scientists have known about the negative forcing of areosols since at least the 1950's. It's the half truth behind the widely repeated troll that "most climate scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's". I know of no reputable climate scientist* who would advocate repealing the clean air act and going back to pea-soupers and acid rain as a sane method of tackling AGW.
* = Eli Kintisch (the author of the original opinion piece in the LA times), does not advocate increasing pollution. He is simply pointing out that man made areosols are currently masking the full impact of CO2 emissions. His book Hack the Planet is an informative work about the pros and cons of geoengineering options that governments may be tempted to consider if things continue on a BAU basis. As the Nature review points out; "Kintisch is skeptical about the idea that we can tame and control ecosystems, let alone the whole planet."
Like the vast majority of scientists his prefered geoengineering option is to wind down the current uncontrolled geoengineering experiment in a responsible manner, but as we have seen there is some mighty stiff oposition against that option from powerfull vested interests. And how surprising is it to learn that they are the same vested interests who, for almost a century, successfully used anti-science and economic alarmisim to fight tooth and nail against any and all proposals for clean air regulations?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks.
100% percent with you, brother. Clean air regulations and indoor smoking ban made a huge difference in my well-being. And a lot is still to do...
Actually I believe that was from Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" dubbed the Cosmic Calendar. Here's a link.
the planet has been here for what? 4 and a half billion years, and we've been here a hundred thousand years, maybe 200 thousand. And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200.
Not according to the next US president.
"His thing is geo-engineering though, so his take is that this means we must start geo-engineering now.
No it doesn't, Kintisch is a reporter for the journal Science and as this Nature review of his book points out...
"Both Goodell and Kintisch make it clear that geoengineering is at best a complement to drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. “We have to immediately launch a worldwide program to stop polluting our atmosphere with this surprisingly pernicious trace gas,” Kintisch argues. Most scientists feel much the same, viewing geoengineering strictly as a possible emergency backup plan that should be used only if things get really dire....[snip]...Kintisch also digs deeper than Goodell into explaining the details of how geoengineering might work — and why it would be so difficult to do well....[snip]...That's not to say Kintisch argues in favour of geoengineering, but that he writes from firmly within the world of science, and for an audience who's comfortable with science, too....[snip]...Kintisch is sceptical about the idea that we can tame and control ecosystems, let alone the whole planet."
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
the people who are firmly in the man made global warming camp will keep throwing things at the wall until something sticks.
In the last year or so it really comes across as if they are desperate to find an angle. When holes (read doubt) start getting punched in one idea they first defend it by relentless attacking those who question it and then they drop their stance and move to another idea. It really has gotten old. Too many of them have vested interest in companies that are making a killing off the whole FUD (both sides do it, but the MMGW side is king lately) and they just come across as bad marketers.
After reading this story it all comes down to, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't see the connection. Are you saying it's too late for us to ruin things? Because while we may have only been here for a miniscule fraction of the Earth's current history, we still have billions of potential years ahead of us here (barring a comet strike or a black hole).
And I'm willing to bet you'd still be pretty pissed if someone broke into your house and knifed you, even if it was 11:59.
Think we're harmless? We've fucking dried up an entire sea. We're responsible for deforestation on a massive scale. The Holocene extinction is what we call the mass-extinction that results from our activities. And do you dispute the theoretical possibility of a nuclear holocaust?
I guess it depends on what you consider "major." In the long run, it's unlikely (although not impossible) that we will completely wipe out life on this planet, true. But we destabilize ecosystems, we destroy biological diversity. That's pretty major.
As to the article, well, whatever. The scientists never said aerosols were "good" or "bad" -- just that while they cause pollution, they also slow warming. Facts don't have intrinsic value; they simply are.
It never ceases to amazes me that the same group of people who crucify the Catholic church for their persecution of Gallileo (in the 17th century!) consistently do the exact same thing to climate change scientists. For a group that claims to be intelligent and driven by reason, this is a glaring exception. This is letting your opinions taint your view of the facts. Slashdot is primarily libertarian. Therefore, they do not like big government. However, if manmade climate change is a real phenomenon, that would prescribe government intervention. Therefore Slashdot continues to believe that there's some ulterior motive behind the whole thing.
I'm not sure what -- I've heard accusations of a conspiracy to make money from carbon taxes, but the what we stand to lose (in the short run) is far more than what we stand to gain. And I've heard others say that the UN is dangerously trying to increase its power, which is ridiculous. Oooh, the scary nonbinding resolutions, and the intimidating respect for national sovereignty.
Not a fan of evolution by natural selection, eh?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There has been extensive reporting that the lack of statisticians in the climate research area is a problem.
Some chap called Wegman did a report for the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) that was rather critical of the lack of statistical expertise, and some of the most consistent complaints about climate research are in the area of statistics.
I'm not an expert and don't have an opinion on this, though!
Rational thought is the only true freedom
"Researchers believe greenhouse gases such as CO2 have committed the Earth to an eventual warming of roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit..."
This is overly optimistic. Some scientists may be about to predict a warming by 42.63 degrees Fahrenheit, with erratic weather patterns, rains, floods, draughts and earthquakes all in your backyard! Several severe volcano eruptions are to follow, causing Americas to collide again with Europe, bringing down the DVD region system and causing irrecoverable damages. The seas will raise and the mountains fall. We are doomed, doomed, DOOOOOOOMED!!! Unless we agree to cap'n trade of course. Then the sun would smile at us.
You mix up the meaning of the precautionary principle. It's not the idea of not doing anything because something might have something negative. Rather, often, if something has great risks, even if relatively unlikely, it is better to do the other alternative. And the more unknown things are, the more cautious you should be.
It's like advising against taking a shortcut on thin ice. Even if you can save ten minutes of using the shortcut way, end even if you only have a small risk of falling through (say one in ten) and perhaps one in a hundred risk of drowning, it isn't worth it. Let's examine the element of unknown here, that is fundamental to the precautionary principle. If it turned out the ice was thick after all, well, depending on your decision, you either took the shortcut just fine or lost ten minutes to walking. If it was even thinner than you had thought, well, you fell through and potentially drowned, or lost ten minutes to walking... It's all just a basic risk analysis. Very asymmetrical stuff.
I may add that I walk regularly on ice in the winter (when we have it, it doesn't happen every winter). It's quite safe when you know what you're doing.
I didn't see anyone saying that we should start pumping aerosols into the atmosphere again.
We should start pumping aerosols into the atmosphere again. Hey, if it will keep the planet from warming and cause Al Gore to go fucking psycho, it sounds like the perfect solution. Plus, it will keep all our businesses odor free.... everybody start emptying your cans of Lysol.
How do you define what's bad for the planet anyway? All we can or should care about is what's bad for us. The planet has been inhospitable for human life before, and will be again. We just need to make sure that doesn't happen sooner rather than later.
The fact is the clean air act has proably done more to put more carbon in the air than anything. C02 was not considered to be the threat it is today when the law was writen, add CAFEE Standards to this and we get the disaster that is the present day American Autombile fleet. We would all be driving cars that are more powerful than we have today getting 50+MPG right now if it was not for those stupid laws. The irration fear of things like NOx has prevented the development of high compression high efficencies engines for consumer applications.
Detroit knows and knew perfectly how to build high out put high efficency engines, and the manfacturing technology was just about getting to where it would be cheap, and then the government came along and told them to stop. Consequently we import much more oil, and burn much more of it setting loose much more carbon.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
"So we are stopping global warming?" -Chinese ambassador on aerosols.
It is not even a real downside.
More sunlight means better plant growth (which means that the plants have to consume more CO2.
More sunlight also means better visibility, thus less need for artifical ligh.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
When is the Green movement going to implement their final solution? That is, when will the governments of the earth begin roundups and executions of 90% of the global population to return the earth to its natural state? That is, after all, the only possible route to the goal that they seek.
Why should the fact that YOU have asthma matter on the validity of the statement "Cleaner air is bad for the planet?"
Selfish ass.
The irony is that you ask people to not have such a black and white view on the environment, yet you have a black and white view on politics. When environmental issues come up, it is always very complicated. It is NEVER just greens being naive.
For example, in the wiki article that YOU site, it claims the removal of the dam was for reasons of safety, the salmon, erosion, and nutrients in the riverbed. Which of those is a "green" issue? While "green" folks supported this in various ways, I'm sure there where others who supported this for selfish reasons.
The dam wasn't producing much power either. It could have had a system to support the salmon. It was built unsafely, even broke at first, but was hacked together later. I think the point with that dam is that it was a piece of crap that did more harm than good.
Wow, good thing the global temp has been falling for the last two decades then.
You've got it reversed, the point should be
"The fact that cleaner air, which we need, may have a warming effect, should only make us fight much stronger against the original sources of the warming itself."
The pollution increases the amount of heat reflected back into space, reducing the pollution reduced the amount of heat reflected and increased the amount absorbed.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Actually I believe that was from Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" dubbed the Cosmic Calendar. Here's a link.
No, I really think you have that wrong. Carl Sagan had the 7 words you can't say on TV.
Manbearpig is coming look busy
OK, I'm not going to say that I can quantify any of this but...
If you increase the use of solar energy, wouldn't you expect that the Sun's energy that is converted to electricity would lessen the heat generated by sun light entering our atmosphere and heating the objects it strikes? This lessening of solar heating could, at least on a small scale, assist in offsetting the extra heat a "cleaner" atmosphere would cause the Earth to experience.
A cleaner atmosphere would also let more sunlight reach solar panels, thus increasing the amount of electrical energy created, and thus lessen the amount of heat energy pumped into the atmosphere.
Also, if solar energy is used to generate a certain amount of electric, this would lessen the amount of waste heat created when another method of generating electricity is used. Nuclear, Oil, Gas all have waste heat associated with the generation of electricity.
So, basically, we gotta pick between getting asthma or getting a tan ?
Damn, but what a conundrum this is. There really are no easy questions.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Cause and effect? Reducing one man-made pollutant exacerbates the effects of another man-made pollutant. Therefore what???
"The fact that cleaner air, which we need, may have a cooling effect, should only make us fight much stronger against the original sources of the warming itself."
So... you're planning to get rid of the Sun? ;)
Of course I didn't RTFA.
>>but your post is a simple illusion, it's a blueprint for a rant on anything and fully exchangeable
Exchangeable? Not at all. I'm for power generation, and opposed to stupidity. On general principles.
While your point about the dams is a valid one (there's more reasons than fish that they're destroying them), the simple fact of the matter is that California has truly fucked itself when it comes to energy. It has a mandate for 33% of power generated from green sources in a few years, and yet it allows 25 tortoises (I'm not making that number up - the Sierra Club shut the plant down over 25 tortoises) to block construction of a honest-to-goodness green power plant. Guess what? There's going to be an endangered something or other anywhere you try to build out a large solar plant. It's how it works. (Oh, you want a smaller site, and one that doesn't produce CO2? How about nuclear? No? That's still off the table?)
>>you're just ranting for the hell of it
Not at all. I'm ranting because I have to give a lecture in eight hours and answer questions from the students about why our system is so badly run.
And while I know that you're trolling, I did point out that clean air in general is a good thing. But pretending that something is all or nothing like the Greens do is just idiotic.
>>You mix up the meaning of the precautionary principle. It's not the idea of not doing anything because something might have something negative. Rather, often, if something has great risks, even if relatively unlikely, it is better to do the other alternative. And the more unknown things are, the more cautious you should be.
No, I hit the precautionary principle dead on. It paralyzes the decision making process by replacing the weighted balance of pros and cons (which is the alternative, mind you) by allowing anything to block action.
In practice, it means that no power plants get built for thirty years in a state that has grown rather significantly since then.
The worst part is, people don't even realize it is self-contradictory. Sometimes doing nothing is the worst possible alternative, by a long shot.
And run it on high-sulfur fuel. Sure it smells a bit, but it's Green! Really!
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
>>The irony is that you ask people to not have such a black and white view on the environment, yet you have a black and white view on politics.
Since I apparently have a black and white view of politics, I'm vastly interested in what you think those are.
>>For example, in the wiki article that YOU site, it claims the removal of the dam was for reasons of safety, the salmon, erosion, and nutrients in the riverbed. Which of those is a "green" issue?
Indeed. (I'm aware of this, having linked the article for you to read.) As I said with the volcano example, there's always a lot of effects, both good or bad, with every decision. But the trend in general to blow up dams is a very troubling one. We need more power plants, not less.
And flood control is a not-insignificant issue, also. In Japan, the Shinto nature-loving country on the other side of the Pacific, every single (well, over 95%) of every river and stream in Japan is dammed. Mainly for flood control issues, but they also produce about 10% of their total power needs from hydro in places like (the very lovely) Kiso River Valley. It's quite jarring to the American eye to see square waterfalls, square streams, and massive hydro plants in the middle of what could be their Yosemite Valley. But they do have something to it.
The IPCC has scientists involved that know statistics one would assume.
I think it has been conclusively proven that no, they don't.
(There's NO tree ring proxy study that passes the simplest of statistical tests)
If stupidity is oversimplifying complex problems, then, to at least one significant figure, everyone is stupid. Even when smart, talented individuals get involved in policymaking, it's usually because they have an ax to grind, and the same results obtain as if they were stupid.
Welcome to western civilization and the tyranny of good/evil.
South asians in the audience, does it actually help if your civilization is based on a philosophy that admits shades of gray?
Think we could clean up the air a little faster? It's snowing in New England right now, and it's supposed to keep doing it for the next 20 or so hours. http://media.giantpachinkomachineofdoom.com/blog/2010-04/images/someweather.jpg
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
How do you define what's bad for the planet anyway? All we can or should care about is what's bad for us. The planet has been inhospitable for human life before, and will be again. We just need to make sure that doesn't happen sooner rather than later.
That is generally what we mean by "bad for the planet" -- making it less hospitable for us as far as comfort, safety, adequate food, etc. goes. Obviously, the planet itself will survive with or without us. And life (of some sort) will somehow find a way
I am not a crackpot.
>>If stupidity is oversimplifying complex problems, then, to at least one significant figure, everyone is stupid.
There's a huge difference between simplifying complex problems, and pretending that it is an all or nothing proposition.
>>South asians in the audience, does it actually help if your civilization is based on a philosophy that admits shades of gray?
To be fair, our Western system of logic is based on the law of the excluded middle, which has resulting in quite a few all-or-nothing fallacies being passed on as logically valid truth. Sorites paradox and all that.
For example, fallacious all-or-nothing arguments like those Greens use, are often of the format:
1) Heat will kill you
2) It is hot outside the house
3) Going outside the house will kill you.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Humans are a remarkably fragile species, and the data I've seen lately regarding methane clathrates and the Siberian permafrost suggests that we are, as of about 5-10 years ago, COMPLETELY f***ed.
If either of those two go (and the permafrost is melting as we speak), it's game over... our species will not survive. And in that scenario, I have no trouble imagining that our leaders will remain in committee arguing the pros and cons of this or that course of action all the way up until the very end.
The more likely scenario is that starting sometime soon, the land available for agriculture on this planet will face a sharp decline, and about 4 billion people are going to starve to death... with several million more dying in resource wars.
Oh, and by the way, all of the above has already started. Resource wars are already under way in Africa, India has requested aid for the following year because they can't grow or import enough food, and the permafrost is melting right now.
http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Inconvenient_Truth_Dan_Miller#fullprogram
Great. Another excuse for BIG HAIR from the 80's to make a comeback.
Just had to wait and tell us after I lost all mine.
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
. . .they really need to read the last 40 years of Science. I remember learning about this in elementary school in the eighties.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Are you saying all out previous ice ages and warmings are just myths?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The planet is going nowhere .
*** WE ARE. ***
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You're assertion that Green's always hold "all-or-nothing" positions is just bullshit. I find it entertaining that you can't take criticism, hold such a hostile view, and are preparing to lecture students.
XML causes global warming.
I disagree with your #3 above. The Elwha Dam is hardly producing any electricity, and it poses a potential danger to downstream communities due to its slipshod construction.
Like you said, there are pros and cons to removal, but on the whole, I think removing the dams is a good idea.
I definitely agree with your #1, above. We have the power generation and storage technology to make relics of gasoline-powered automobiles. Do we have the will?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid. They simply don't understand that every choice is always a mixture of pros and cons, good effects and bad effects and side effects. Their mindset (based on the precautionary principle) is that if ANYTHING is negative about an option, they must file a lawsuit and get it banned.
but this is not at all what your problem is. you have not given a single piece of evidence that the greens don't know that every subject has multiple facets, that they just see something, anything and jump on it, no matter what else is connected to it. your problem is that the side they choose is sometimes just plain bonkers (and i will certainly agree with that on many occasions), which is what you just underlined in your answer.
your original sentence makes in so far not even any sense as it actually implies that they would at any point argue against any and all negative sides of a subject. but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions. you think their priorities are wrong (like endangered species over new power sources) and that's it.
Note to mods:
Read the rules on moderating. Thanks.
You can mod this one down too if you want to waste your mod points. Go ahead.
--
BMO
Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
Haven't you figured it out yet? For many in climate change politics, that is the ultimate goal...thus the reason for the strong negative response to all technologies that promise to do just what you ask.
Of course not. Very few things are "always" true, and this applies to Greens as much as to rational, thinking individuals. (Or is that too hostile? The use of "bullshit" in your attack on my hostility leads me to think such a statement is okay.)
Find one of the cases I listed above that's not true, and you might have a point. But I call it like I see it, and I see Greens being worse for the environment than any other group. The nuclear ban alone is reason enough.
But the trend in general to blow up dams is a very troubling one. We need more power plants, not less.
I agree with you that we need more power plants, but there are good reasons to remove dams.
I find it interesting that you criticize Greens for a black-and-white worldview, and yet you offer a blanket statement "we need more power plants, not less[sic]" for why we shouldn't remove dams. Some dams are dangerous (including the Elwha dams you mentioned earlier, which by the way, hardly produce any electricity). $300M a big price tag, but the Teton Dam failure cost $2B 1976 dollars.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
>>you have not given a single piece of evidence that the greens don't know that every subject has multiple facets, that they just see something, anything and jump on it, no matter what else is connected to it.
How about throwing parties for shutting down a nuclear power plant? =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_'90/The_Greens
And that's unfortunately a Green party that was actually part of a ruling bloc.
>>but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions.
Actually, that's precisely what's happening. It's called the "Green on Green Battle", where environmental groups are on both sides of an issue. One group will decide global warming is a bigger problem than 25 tortoises, and another group will decide the tortoises are more important, and... everyone loses.
By contrast, if they held more nuanced views (instead of these nutcase all-or-nothing views which ), you'd have seen actual progress happen, on a variety of fronts.
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up. As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks. Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
This will probably sound wrong, or at least politically incorrect but... Cleaner air can speed global warming while still killing everyone who suffers from asthma.
Natural facts don't usually care about consequences on human health.
So, I think you're point should be more oriented towards something like: "The fact that cleaner air, which we need, may have a cooling effect, should only make us fight much stronger against the original sources of the warming itself."
yeah we should blow up the sun... get to the source.. smart idea.
Good point, another point is CO2 is heavier than air, so it stays down, not up where it would be blocking the heat from escaping. That's also missing from pretty much every "Green" article.
The person writing the article made the mistake of lumping everything into one phrase: Cleaner air.
That is very misleading.
What they are talking about here is less particulate matter. Too much CO2 in the air is a bad thing, and d to our spewing out trillions of tones of the stuff we are cause global warming well above natural cycle; however the particulate matter also has an impact.
This is a known effect called global cooling. Yeah, I hate that name to.
Basically there is a bunch of particulate matter the reflects some energy back into space. The very temporary benefit is that temperatures aren't ring as fast as they would without it. The down side is less light is hitting the earth.
There are many practical ways to cut emissions, and there is effort to do this. We all want modern electrical lifestyle, and many people are working on ways to t this. It is expensive. California seems to be doing it write. There emission aren't rising anywhere near as much as other parts of the world.
Just to clarify: No one is saying to stop reducing particulate matter. It's only something that needs to be taken into account.
Stop being a spaz and study up.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The complete attitude and casing of your post is why it looks like a troll.
The fact that you are complete wrong in your post didn't help.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ah so you want to breathe clean air, you want to continue to pollute, and you want a solution that wont inconvnience you at all?
Yeah, what I'd really like is a giant pony, a magical one that fires lightning from it's eyes, and provides chocolate for me whenever I say "Chocolate Ponyo!".
Really, you're not asking for much are you?
Fat cats like George Soros and Al Gore have been investing in carbon-credit exchanges (and the legislators to promote them) for decades now. It's a big business, and the powers of the left have been waiting a long time for their take.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
All valid points. ...Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned in the first place. It needed plastic for itself, didn't know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, "Why are we here?"
The planet has been through a lot worse than humanity.
It's been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we have the *conceit* to think some plastic bags and aluminum cans are going to make a difference?
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Just ask those people in Pompeii, frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing.
Wanna know if the planet's alright? Ask those people in Mexico City, or Armenia, or a hundred other places, buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble...if they feel like a _threat_ to the planet...this week.
How about those people in Hawaii who build their homes right next to an active volcano....and then wonder why they have *lava* in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, loooong time after we're gone, and it will heal itself because *that's* what it does; it's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, and if it's true that plastic's not degradable, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: The Earth Plus Plastic. The Earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic; plastic came out of the Earth. The Earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children.
Plastic, you self-aggrandizing assholes.
(YouTube search: George Carlin Environmentalists)
Gee genius thanks for explaining that. We thought for sure the hunk of rock was in jeopardy of ceasing to be.
Yeah, when people say that, there talking about it being habitable for us.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oracle already did that
NOVA did a piece on this April 2006.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
--
BMO
.....Get rid of China.
It costs about as much energy or more to make a solar panel as it will generate in its entire life. So unless you make solar panels using wind energy or something like that, it won't save on the environment.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid"
The real tragic effects is that you are so stupid you lump everybody into broad nonsense categories.
1) That ban is a result of not having anywhere to put waste. This was a huge problem in the 70s. It actually made sense at the time. Now there is a group of people who have been fights against Yucca mountain, and this is why there hasn't been a nuclear plant built. My experience with the people who are against that is that they have no clue on how nuclear waste is stored.
Yes, I know about 4th gen nuclear reactor, and I know we can reuse waste and that wast has a life half life short enough that ti will return to background radiation in 200-500 years.
2) Link? The case that I know of involved the fact that the solar plant would have used most of the water in the area and wanted more study on that impact.
I am also ware of them trying to stop the wires to attach the wind mills in CA to the grid; which is stupid.
3) Those damns where approaching or past there EOL. Damns do no work forever, and there toatla output was pretty low. IN fact, they couldn't even run 1 paper mill.
4) The auto industry introduced the SUV. The fact that they made an end run around regulation si there fault. The minivan kills the station wagon, not the SUV. It also a pretty cheap trick to compare the best station wagon to on of the worst SUVs.
I just looked it up, all SUVs in 2009 and 2010 sold in N. America get of 20 MPG. so you are actually a liar. Just so you know, that's worse then a cheap trick.
"Like the cooling tower on a nuclear plant, like idiot wunderkind Al Gore showed in an Inconvenient Truth, but I digress"
are you sure about that? Just so you know some coal stacks look just like some nuclear stacks.
"As long as idiot Greens continue thinking in all-or-nothing terms, "
Which is exactly what you are going in regards to people who want a clean environment.
As long as pundits and people like you lump everything together as if on group in controlling everything, and tossing out their mistakes as the only results from anyone who want's green, you will be coal powers bitch.
Look at individual issues and talk about those specific issues. Otherwise you are just noise confusing the issues at hand.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
(Score:5, Horrifying)
Someday the Earth will be much, much warmer than it is now. And, eventually 2/3 of the Earth will be blanketed with ice. It's inevitable because as you've said, it's happened before. Extending the pattern forward, it's going to happen again and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
But none of the points show any stupidity excepts your own stupidity. Failing to understand the context and not making specific arguments is a strong indicator you have a weak mind.
"'m not making that number u"
then provide a link.
No, you are ranting for the hell of it. The fact that you can not create specific points that can be dabate makes me very sad the you give lectures.
"about why our system is so badly run."
there you go again. A complete bias, and you lump all thing under one broad umbrella.
You are not helping.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/spotlessdays.htm?PHPSESSID=u78g4tbhtno21eiegugs5fvde2
True. But the complaints were about stats issues far more subtle than "Correlation does not necessarily imply causation!". I can guarantee the majority of scientists working on IPCC get that one.
No. I'm saying that the ice ages and warmings were CAUSED by various factors. OP stated that correlation is not causation. Hence arguing that temperature caused all of these other things. Which is patently retarded.
Your asthma medication is the leading cause of global warming. You should be ashamed!
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Yep, that about sums it up.
Don't put tags on things, just stop dumping shit into the air.
Most just think that we are doing nothing wrong, and don't really understand that if you take things toxic, dump them into the environment, they only filter out through some form of respiration or absorption to transform them into a material that another object can transform that into another substance.
We and animals that respirate are filters... and that's just the simplest way to think of it since there's far more than respiration that is hit by all of it.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
When "we" say "planet", we mean the ecosystem, plants, and lifeforms.
It's obvious the planet's not going to be damaged since it's a ball of magma with a core, and some floating cooled debris floating on top.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Well that's not how he came across on the radio, not at all. Maybe he was just pushing his book.
The obvious solution to all our problems, all out nuclear war. It will keep the planet cool while the green house gases dissapate, and reduce the population to a size that will not effect the enviroment. We have the means, just .... push .... the .... button :)
I don't have the time to address more of your points properly (like nuclear waste), however
So, what is the MPG that the 2009 Nissan Armada gets then? According to fueleconomy.gov, it does 14 MPG combined for the 2009MY and the Sequoia gets similar numbers. Unless both manufacturers significantly increased the performance without any significant changes while hiding it from the government, I don't think the OP is the liar here.
So... they're stupid because you don't agree with them?
Don't label anyone "greens" and you'll start to understand how the world really is. Pigeon-holing people leads to myopic thinking, which we see here.
For one, there's been massive debates between individuals who were/are pro-earth on whether nuclear would be a viable energy solution cleanly, with very little human impact. We've come far in the storage/disposal of decayed fission material, but we're still pretty dark-aged about it. If you look at the entire picture, you'd realize there's no black and white.
For two, solar is used... a lot. It's upsurge is a pro, and will continue to rise quietly because it's "in the background" so to speak. Let's not get silly and start bringing scenarios that are idiotic into the picture, especially since tortoises don't live in the deserts. APS in arizona, and many many other companies now offer solar power alternatives. Wind power is a huge piece of california, and is upsurging throughout the united states in areas that are prone to wind.
For three, with such a selfish attitude of me me me, you'll never see the whole picture on this one. Hydroelectric dams do make alot of electricity, however they also hold back many breeding patterns of fish and waterlife, along with destroying the ecosystem within by changing the temperatures. To top it off, the areas below the dam are basically parched in comparison to previous which drastically changes the area... a bit of an issue when your depriving water to another culture/community/country.
For four... what the hell are you talking about?
For five... well it looks like you've got things right here... except that the only thing coming out of a cooling tower of a nuclear planet is heat.
You are a paradox...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I don't know who these "Greens" are. Too me it's just some made up straw man for you to beat on. I've never met anyone as narrow minded as you claim they are.
Well, we and potentially, many, most or all other living things on the planet. The question is, do we care whether we leave this place a smoldering hulk or a rich, life-sustaining environment? And if we do care, then the next question is, how can we best ensure our aims, whether they be at either of those extremes or somewhere in the middle?
There are indeed people who want to hasten the destruction of the planet, from the perspective of human habitability. Some of these folks are Christian extremists, and some have been in very powerful positions in government. James Watt, Reagan's secretary of the interior, was one of them. He and his ilk are of the firm belief that if we hasten the destruction of this world, we also hasten the (re-?) arrival of the messiah. Clear-cutting forests, mega-expansion of drilling, huge escalations in nuclear power and weaponry deployments were all done in the name of the Lord.
The CB App. What's your 20?
I read your post three times and I'm still wondering what you were trying to say...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
So what you're saying is due to the fact that we've lowered our particulate creation that we've destroyed the environment...
Let's keep the SUV out of the equation since that was the industry.
*holds head* ouch... the logic astounds me...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid. They simply don't understand that every choice is always a mixture of pros and cons, good effects and bad effects and side effects.
The really tragic fact about your post is that...you're stupid. You simply don't understand that insulting people is always a guaranteed way to just make you look like a dick to them.
Hell, I don't consider myself a "Green" and I consider you a dick just for that line.
Since I apparently have a black and white view of politics, I'm vastly interested in what you think those are.
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid.
I don't know what else to tell you than that generalizations like the one you made are the definition of black and white thinking.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Not new news - a documentary by PBS has been out for some time on this subject (though few have seen it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUD66kjLVNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZnnLnl8L2w
etc.
I can answer that about the volcano. It IS the environment, thus it just is what it is. It is not good or bad, it happens without the result of outside interference. Humans seem to not understand that while science is important, observe and test, we try to jump in a throw in the step of "fuck with it" before we have all relevant data.
It's quite a bit more complex than that.....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
We just need to add CO2 to the Clean Air act. Then arrest everyone who exhales!
OR
Return to the hunting & gathering lifestyle since farming devastates the natural eco-system.
+5 troll.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Clean air is a hoax, just like global warming ;-)
Love it! Can I quote you?
]:)
Regards;
However the current ecosystem is in a bit of peril, some say that we're currently living through the 6 great extinction of earth
Yeah, the Holocene extinction event. But that is not from any specific cause, but rather many human-related causes combined. I'm not surprised that air and water pollution, overfishing, overhunting, habitat loss due to e.g. agriculture, and other factors could combine to cause something similar to one of the big extinction events.
The SUV existed before CAFE.
CAFE started in 1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Suburban
1935
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Bronco
1966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Cherokee_(SJ)
1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Wagoneer
1963
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_cruiser
1951
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_Rover_Classic
1970
How do you define what's bad for the planet anyway? All we can or should care about is what's bad for us. The planet has been inhospitable for human life before, and will be again. We just need to make sure that doesn't happen sooner rather than later.
That is generally what we mean by "bad for the planet" -- making it less hospitable for us as far as comfort, safety, adequate food, etc. goes. Obviously, the planet itself will survive with or without us. And life (of some sort) will somehow find a way
That depends on who "we" are. There are some people who think humans are the problem.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
there is nothing we can do to stop it.
That's not as certain as you might think. Severe glaciations can be caused by quite a small difference in global temperatures. A fairly small dip in temperature causes some glaciation, which increases the albedo of the planet, reflecting more sunlight back into space, further decreasing the temperature, and so on.
Thus, a fairly small temperature drop might initiate a feedback loop that can make the world much colder. We are probably not capable of pulling the Earth out of a glaciation in the near future, especially a severe glaciation, but it is not unthinkable that we might be able to prevent the initiation of such a feedback loop, which requires far less effort.
The cooling nature of some industrial aerosols has been known for a long time. Just last Fall we were treated with the project to pump hundreds of millions of tons of SO2 into the stratosphere via 12 mile long tubes at the poles. In was in the Freakanomics book that was a 9 day wonder everywhere.
Either that or develop REALLY big heat-resistant corks for every volcano on the planet.
Actually if the goal is to slow Global Warming or induce cooling, perhaps an ice age, then having volcanoes erupt is a great way to do it. All the ash put in the atmosphere blocks sunlight from reaching the ground thus causes cooling. Since it's eruption I've been wondering how big an effect the volcano's eruption in Iceland will have on climate, temperatures probably will decline but just how much?
You don't even want to KNOW the plans for Yellowstone.
If the supervolcano Yellowstone Caldera erupts it can have a big impact on climate.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Global Warming has not been proven false or equal to the Flat Earth Theory. At most what has been shown is that more scientific studies need to be done.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Search for the documentary. You can find it on youtube.
Tortoises don't live in the desert?
Well, hell, man. You should have told the Sierra club this before they shut the plant down
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34659369/ns/us_news-environment/
is that they're stupid. ...
This has led to:
1) A ban on nuclear power here in California
Except environmentalists or greenies didn't stop nuclear power. As the Hooked on Subsidies article the pro freemarket CATO Institute republished, originally published by "Forbes", said it is state actors not the market that decides what nuclear power plants are built. Even in France and other nations, here's the relevant paragraph:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
The "Hooked on Subsidies article brings up the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant being built in Finland. The French government owned business Areva and Siemans were building it, however Siemens sold it's interest to Areva. As of this tyme last year cost overruns have caused it's "3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion", to climb at least 50 percent. Market Watch published a story about a study that warns of steep cost overruns at new reactors.
2) The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.
I'm glad I don't donate to the Sierra Club. They're not the only hypocrites though. On the Atlantic Coast there are those who oppose offshore wind farms. Even Ted Kennedy opposed a wind farm, in Cape Cod. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States" lays out the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential to supply all of the US with energy. Meanwhile SciAm published the article A Solar Grand Plan lays out how solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." Then there are other potential energy sources as well. Geothermal energy supplied California with 13 terawatts or 4.5% of the electricity used in CA in 2007. One geothermal project in Hawaii is the Puna Geothermal Venture and it supplies the big island of 20% of it's electricity. The SciAm article Hawaii Says Aloha (Greetings) to Clean, Renewable Energy says geothermal energy can be expanded to supply more electricity:
"Last January, Hawaii signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) that would make the Aloha State the country's most aggressive in pursuing renewable energy. By 2030, it plans to obtain 70 percent of its power from clean energy (40 percent from renewables and 30 percent from energy efficiency). Outstripping California's goal of 33 percent by 2020, the Hawaii initiative is a green light for clean-tech experts and enthusiasts to set up shop in the heart of the Pacific and may become a blueprint (or greenprint) for the rest of the country."
Geothermal isn't only available in the west either. It is being used now in
Should there be a Law?
How about throwing parties for shutting down a nuclear power plant? =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_'90/The_Greens
First off, the wiki article you provided the link to says nothing about the Greens throwing a party, the only references to any party is to political parties. Next, the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. That's not me saying that, that is a freemarket institute and a business magazine saying it.
>>but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions.
Actually, that's precisely what's happening. It's called the "Green on Green Battle", where environmental groups are on both sides of an issue.
Ah, so environmentalists aren't one big monolithic block.
By contrast, if they held more nuanced views (instead of these nutcase all-or-nothing views which )
Make up your mind, either they are a "nutcase all-or-nothing" monolithic block or they are not.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Except all those vehicles you list are or were 4X4s, 4WD, or AWD meant for off-road driving. Well except the Range Rover maybe. SUV's are not meant for off-road driving, sure they are capable of some but they aren't meant for it. There are only a few SUVs made I'd take off-road like I used to do, some of those places required a truck to have a snorkel to breath. Others places you finished the trip only by airboat or something similar. Other places I've been to and camped at these SUVs would rollover trying to climb a hill or embankment.
Now I realize I'm a relic on slashdot but I grew up in Florida and spent a lot of tyme in the wilderness surviving off the land fishing and hunting and gathering food in Ocala National Forest, on the St Johns River, in the Everglades or on the coast.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You'd better tell the Desert Tortoise that.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well said fellow AC. Nice to see someone who understands the issues. It amazes me that as many supposedly intelligent people can be so incredibly arrogant as to believe the misinformed rantings of psudoscienticsts rather than the considered opinion of the experts.
Libertarians really are a bunch of useless, selfish morons.
Ptioy you get modded down for telling the truth.
Hopefully the lbertarian trolls with mod points will waste soem more modding this down.
Maybe, also some people write better than they speak.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As this perfectly correct ppost was modded down by the know nothing denialists I thought i would re post it so they can waste their mod points.
Well said Sir, pity the stupid assholes with mod points cant handle the truth.
not one of your examples shows us that those greens are stupid and unable to see both side of a coin. you're simply stating what has happened and tell them off because they chose one of the two sides. it's discussion worthy which one of those sides should be chosen, but clearly you don't give a shit. you're just ranting for the hell of it, you could turn around each one of those points if they had not done so and the rant would still be the exact same. just as you tell the greens that they are idiots for doing what they do, you're an idiot for generalizing and being unable to argue the point you're supposed to make.
let me make this a little clearer: if they had not gotten the dams demolished, you could simply say that their eagerness to build renewable energy sources has in turn destroyed an ecosystem. but the greens stand for the protection of nature, noooo they're so stupid! and then they didn't vote for the clean air act because the pollution actually has a cooling effect counteracting global warming, my god, how could they be so stupid, they stand for clean air!
yes, all people are naive and everything has two sides. no, there is no simple answer and we have to carefully examine every decision we make and only then choose the side that is better for us. but your post is a simple illusion, it's a blueprint for a rant on anything and fully exchangeable. whoever voted this up should learn to think for themselves and stop jumping on every whiny populist speech.
No, I'm not wrong. You didn't listen to the radio. He comes across as a complete kook. Maybe the book is different, but that's not what it was like on All Things Considered.
And oh, gee, the other person in the thread who *also listened to the radio program* came to the same conclusion. Funny, that.
Lastly, my attitude? Attitude is not a reason to mod down. Read the rules.
--
BMO
How do you define what's bad for the planet anyway? All we can or should care about is what's bad for us. The planet has been inhospitable for human life before, and will be again. We just need to make sure that doesn't happen sooner rather than later.
That is generally what we mean by "bad for the planet" -- making it less hospitable for us as far as comfort, safety, adequate food, etc. goes. Obviously, the planet itself will survive with or without us. And life (of some sort) will somehow find a way
That depends on who "we" are. There are some people who think humans are the problem.
Falcon
I've heard of them, but never actually met one. Statistically, I don't doubt that someone does believe that. And if we manage to make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, we'd probably take other species with us to oblivion. And that does seem wrong, kind of like poisoning your whole family with carbon monoxide just to do yourself in in the garage.
But we are part of nature. I don't think you can really call us "good" or "bad": we just are, like any other species. And species come and go, sometimes with the help of others. Not that we should be trying, of course.
I am not a crackpot.
Agreed.
I don't think you can really call us "good" or "bad":
If by "us" you mean humans I agree, but I believe specific people can be good or bad.
And species come and go, sometimes with the help of others.
Therein lies the problem to me, "with the help of others". If climate rapidly changes, earth warms for instanced, due to human activity and species are driven extinct because of it then I hold people responsible. Mind you not all but some. I also see problems trying to do something as a counter, some of the geo-engineering schemes to combat Global Warming for instance, without understanding it. A good example of this is asbestos. For centuries asbestos was used and called the miracle mineral fiber. It was only found to be bad in the 1960s. Now I doubt a day goes by when I do not see a lawyer's add for an asbestos lawsuit.
Not that we should be trying, of course.
Overall I believe we, humans, should try to reduce our negative effects on the biosphere and that we can make improvements in the way we live to help the biosphere.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"I see Greens being worse for the environment than any other group. The nuclear ban alone is reason enough."
Ah, another frustrated nuke fan resorts to ad-hominem. I love the way you grasp any irrevleant straw to try and justify nuke plants. You obvioulsy did not get the memo
NOBODY WANTS THEM APART FROM A FEW DICKHEADS.
"We all like breathing"
I used to work for a company that "does" oxygen. I was working closely with those who knew how to compress, liquefy and provide it.
Decades ago we stored enough oxygen to sustain the important people, didn't you know this?
Oops, nevermind, nothing to see here.
Bravo, ShakaUVM. You apparently have many foes, but well-said in all your arguments.
The core of climate science is physics, specifically radiative transfer. Anyone who trains in that area is going to get a shitload of statistics before they get their degree.
You didn't read the article, then.
When I did a cost comparison of different power sources, I included state subsidies in the analysis. Hell, I drew on a lot of different sources, probably spending 20 hours of my own time trying to cut through the drek and get good numbers for how much things cost. Nuclear is particularly susceptible to lawsuits, which adds to cost overruns here in America, which leads to the greens harping on the delays and cost overruns. There's a bill in Congress to actually transfer the decision making process to the federal Department of the Interior, away from state PUCs, in order to eliminate the logjam we're in.
No the Greens are not necessarily monolithic, though actual Green parties (like the German Greens linked to above) certainly can be bullheaded in their stupid decision making. Instead, what happens in California is that if you want to build a power plant, it's guaranteed at least one green group will make an all or nothing decision and shut you down. I had a friend who went through this when trying to build a power plant near Bakersfield. There was simply no site, ANYWHERE, to build. And this was during our big energy crisis in the Gray Davis days. It would be easier if you could just talk to the Sierra Club and get them to sign off on a project, believe me. It would be more like dealing with an intelligent though illogical adversary than the psychopathic amalgam of green groups we have now.
To use an analogy: you want to buy diapers, and need to go through the same gauntlet that power companies do.:?
OPTION 1: Buy disposable plastic diapers. Rejected because it contributes to landfills.
OPTION 2: Buy washables. Rejected because it wastes water.
Result: We end up with poop everywhere, because Greens reject everything out of hand do to their all or nothing thinking. They simply cannot handle the concept that everything has pros and cons.
>>then provide a link.
What would you like a citation for? My lecture notes for this topic are about 10 pages long. I can post them all if you'd like.
>>I don't know what else to tell you than that generalizations like the one you made are the definition of black and white thinking.
You're just talking in circles, then.
I actually research every topic rather thoroughly, and have probably spent more time on RC.org than any other single source, but it doesn't mean I agree with RC.org (in fact, I think they're deceitful hacks). I'll listen to Glenn Beck and Pacifica Communist Radio in the same hour.
Obviously, the generalization that Greens are stupid is, well, a generalization. But taken as a whole (i.e. by looking at the output of the effect of Greens on society), it's quite accurate. The Green movement tends to shut down anything with any sort of negative side, regardless of the positive. This is what I mean by "stupid". If you'd like a less apt analogy, I could compare them to an abusive stepfather that beats you for getting one question wrong on the SAT, or a broken car or something.
Hey, thanks man. At least my post didn't get modded as flamebait. Though I like the environment, clean air, and all that, I don't have a lot of respect for the Greens, and I have to defend them in class (well, at least explain why someone would think that way), which tends to make me irritable toward them.
>>I don't know who these "Greens" are.
I dunno, the people who join "Green" parties? They count?
If you're re-posting it, why didn't you fix the spelling and grammar mistakes? My lord, dude, you make the Unibomber look literate.
I also answered your points, in any event.
To be pedantic: [(100K to 200K yrs)/ 4.5B yrs] * 365.24 days * 24hrs/day * 60min/hr = 12 to 24min, so we arrived somewhere between 11:36 and 11:48.
Clearly another case of a global warming denier deliberately misrepresenting the scientific consensus...
Sure, but the problematic areas haven't been the physics, they've been areas like dendrochronology which are more biology (or wishful thinking, depending on who you listen to :) ), and the modeling of the climate systems. It is (or at least should be) non-controversial at this point that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more CO2 means warmer temperatures. As far as I'm aware the only discussion is whether anthropogenic sources of CO2 are causing a measurable increase in that warming.
The problem is that when you go beyond superficial, statistics are complex, and certain analyses can be tricky, or not applicable even if they look applicable at first glance. There is also the perennial problem of the data that gets fed into those models, and area that's particularly prone to confirmation bias no matter how impartial the team is trying to be.
As far as "correlation does not imply causation", goes, you must also recall that causation requires correlation.
These are difficult issues to resolve. A buttload of statistics isn't much good if you're not using it right :)
Rational thought is the only true freedom
No, I really think you have that wrong. Carl Sagan had the 7 words you can't say on TV.
I remember that act!
Billions, Billions, Billions, Billions, Billions, Billions, and Billions!
Hilarious.
You didn't read the article, then.
Not only did I read the article but I also used my browser's search function. If I am wrong then include the sentence where it says parties were thrown because nuclear power plants were shutdown. Heck, just for the heck of it, I'll list all the sentences with "party" or "parties":
Should there be a Law?
Wow. With the amount of effort you put into quoting it, and trying to prove you read it, you could have just read the thing. :/
Hint: search for "celebrated".
Nuclear is actually cost competitive with coal,
So the Wall Street Journal is wrong? Even they say "The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power's favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide." If however emissions of carbon dioxide had a price tag then geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources would be more competitive as well not just nuclear power. And if nuclear is so great then why does the industry need subsidies and gets loan guaranties?
and is the only green energy source that is.
Nuclear power is not clean, it is dirty from cradle to grave, oops there is no grave for nuclear waste. Ask the Navajo how clean uranium mining is. Or some First Nations in Canada, the aboriginals in Australia, or any number of other indigenous peoples throughout the world.
It's also wrong that nuclear plants need to be these massive, expensive things. We've had portable nuclear generators since the '60s, and you can build out plants of various sizes from there all the way up to the mega installations.
Is that why Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant has costs overruns raising it's cost from 3 billion euros to more than 4.2 billion? Or seen it's operation delayed from 2009 to 2012 at the earliest? Since you didn't like the previous CATO article you probably won't like this one either but Nuclear Energy: Risky Business says "the industry in the early 1990s asked for-and got-exactly the sort of safety regulations, permit review process, and public comment regime now in place." Further, it says "Indeed, if government were the reason why investors were saying "no" to their loan applications, I would expect that industry officials would be the first to say so. But they do not."
Solar is currently 3x - 10x more expensive than coal.
Saying that's true now, I don't know, solar is constantly dropping in costs. And coal does not pay all of it's own costs. Like other energy sources coal is subsidized. Mountaintop removal probably the safest way to mine coal is very destructive and polluting.
The only reason it can be cost effective is because the government very very heavily subsidizes solar installations.
If ethanol subsidies, most of which go to corn and there are better feed stocks than corn, are removed from alternative energy subsidies coal comes in first place in the amount of subsidies it gets. The graph on the page linked to says alternative energy got $4.875 billion in 2007. Of that though $3 billion went to ethanol. Coal on the other hand is broken down into 2 categories. Refined coal, whatever that is, got $2.370 billion and coal got $932 million. Together coal got $3.302 billion whereas goethermal, solar, wind and other alternative sources got $1.9 billion excluding ethanol. I do see that it has nuclear as getting less than alternatives though, however I wonder how it breaks down for the different types? As that page asks, "which pig wears the most lipstick?"
Geothermal will never amount to more tha
Should there be a Law?
Troll
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Ah, I see you did find 'celebrated'. I sort of skimmed past your quotes, which were about as long as the entire article you were quoting. Your work above is honestly the biggest quotefail I've ever seen, which is pretty impressive.
If you'd dug more into the history of Germany and nuclear power plants, you'd understand how the Green party alliance is full of fail on the topic as well.
The article you quote says that the nuclear power plant with the cost overruns is going to lose money because France currently has an energy surplus. Guess where their surplus came from? Nuclear energy. Your CATO article also said that we should impose a CO2 tax, but now you don't like the idea, apparently.
No, the nuclear power industry is protected from lawsuits. The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act indemnifies, protects, the nuclear power industry:
No, absolutely not true.
The nuclear industry is not "protected from lawsuits" by Price-Anderson. They are indemnified against liability, which is an entirely different issue. If you followed the story of the Diablo Canyon plant, you'd know how idiot Greens caused a massive disruption and delay via lawsuits, protests, and illegal activities, for very minor gain in safety. The wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant) doesn't go into the whole epic saga, barely even noting that it happened. But this was basically when California had enough with nuclear - it was because of idiot Greens, lawsuits, and politics, not economic factors that resulted in the moratorium. Take a read at it some time, it takes a couple hours at least to give the story justice.
There are a couple other acts both proposed and on the books that try to remedy the program, none very successful so far. Harry Reid is actually a big supporter of trying to break the gridlock on building power plants, because even someone as liberal as him knows that if we continue down the path of not building anything, anywhere, it's disaster for our country. (And, of course, it increases the power of the federal government at the expense of states.)
>>No body gets subsidies, that includes no passing on external costs to others, or loan guaranties.
Then you should love nuclear. I know you quoted CATO's, "No to subsidies" article. Do you actually know how much of a subsidy ultimately goes into different power types? Nuclear has the least subsidies per KWH (as fraction of price) of any green technology.
And since you mention external costs, we'll lump the social cost of coal in as well, and show nuclear as the best option:
Coal/Gas: No subsidies, 300% social cost.
Nuclear: 14% subsidies
Biomass: 14% - 94% subsidies
Fuel Cell: 31% - 56% subsidies
Geothermal: 45% subsidies
Hy
OK, The aerosols are gone and the cleaner air is causing global warming. wait, what about before the aerosols? what about before automobiles? did the erath move closer to the sun? we didn't have all this global warming before we had aerosols and automobiles!