Slashdot Mirror
Obama Reveals Climate Change Plan
Today President Obama gave a speech outlining the administration's plan to take on climate change. (Video of the speech available on YouTube, and the White House published an infographic as well.) Most significantly, Obama's plan would have the EPA set limits on carbon pollution from all U.S. power plants, a goal already meeting resistance from Republicans. The plan also sets the goal of funding enough solar- and wind-based energy projects on public lands to power over 6 million homes by 2020. By 2030, it aims to use efficiency standards to reduce carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons. Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy. He also pointed out the difficulty in getting emerging industrial economies to be environmentally conscious. To that end, the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries, unless those plants use carbon capture and sequestration technologies. The speech addressed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 gallons of oil per day from Canada into the U.S. Obama indicated that approval for the pipeline would be tied to emissions goals.
I have absolutely no respect anymore for Obama. Everything i hear from him is a lie, after the NSA scandal. So i fully believe that this plan is going through.
Great, now he wants to keep track of climate too!!!!
THANKS, Obama!
He also pointed out the difficulty in getting emerging industrial economies to be environmentally conscious.
Yes, it's very difficult to tell the countries where we outsource our industrial jobs to reduce their profits and spend more on the environment.
I don't understand what this post has to do with Obama battling ManBearPig.
Not to mention that reducing our use of oil might be a good way to stop sending piles of our cash to places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. I'd rather spend $2 on R&D to improve technology than $1 on importing oil: the latter is cheaper in the short-term, but not really in the long-term.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Don't you know reality has a liberal bias?
>> Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy.
Like move coastal populations so we aren't always on the hook for rebuilding people's beach houses?
>> the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries
We're doing what? And they wonder why taxpayers hate the federal government...
Friends of the Earth's climate and energy program director Damon Moglen said the President's climate plan is "not enough" and needs to be more ambitious.
http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan
Well isn't doing something like this, which causes so much angst from the energy sector and Republicans, at least a step in the right direction? Using a US football analogy, we can't always make a touchdown with every effort isn't a heroic 9-yard run a good start? Being any more ambitious with the President's plan would risk all-out resistance from every billion-dollar lobby and politician.
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
It's just business sense.
1) Those technologies and data center locations save the company money through energy costs and government subsidies.
2) They get to spin it as good PR -- Hey Look at us all green and eco-friendly and carbon neutral!
I'm not disagreeing that they're doing potentially good things, but you're deluded if you think the motives are altruistic.
Hippyville California is the first place that is blacked out.
FTFY.
What power shortage would be cause by government regulation?
Sounds more like because people failed to meet a regulation.
I don't get a check from the IRS when I screw up my taxes. I don't understand how someone who supposedly supports capitalism is ok with externalities.
You'd think a FEW of them would, I dunno, work as scientists or something.
DP: So you feel that a lot of scientists have sold their souls?
It's that line specifically that makes me feel comfortable totally ignoring anything else he says. I feel a lot of radio talk show hosts never had any souls to begin with.
Not for nothing are the Republicans known as "the stupid party."
We have a carefully designed system of government. For one branch to declare that it will simply bypass one of the others is a direct violation of the Constitution. No ifs, ands or buts. No President has the power to bypass Congress. The system was designed to balance powers, in this case the Executive branch is declaring the process null and void.
Well, I didn't think it was possible for the U.S. to fuck over third world countries any harder. But then!
To that end, the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries ... And STAY down, Africa.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I personally like The Bill and Melinda Gates foundations' efforts at sterilizing and depopulating the world, especially the parts of the world that contribute nothing except disease and famine.
Bill Gates invented MS-DOS and also invented the first point-and-click GUI operating system, Windows 3.1, so he has the authority to decide whose lives are worth how much. He also has a hot wife who likes him for who he is, and his fashionable taste in fashion. You know how Apple made a touch interface for the iPod and iPad? Well, Bill Gates made the first touch interface, Windows 8, for the PC! When was the last time you made something like that? No, your popsicle-stick birdhouse doesn't count.
-- Ethanol-fueled
He's going to do his best to end the threat of global reporting.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
US already has a climate change plan - destroy the climate! I don't see why he'd want to change horses midstream...
> It’s a case of following the money. It’s a case of following the fashions and the fads. It’s a case of getting the fame and the fortune which comes with something like this,
Please tell us more about this book you wrote that you're here promoting.
I am not a climate scientist. So someone please help me to understand how and why the ice caps melting is a perfectly okay thing? I'm not asking whether or not the ice caps melting is man made. It's another discussion and certainly one which is harder to prove or observe. But we've got ice melting that has been frozen for many, many planetary cycles giving scientists access to a wealth of new data on earth's history.
How is it not climate change?
I have an extremely open mind. Just lay out some reasons why it's not climate change. Is the melting ice a lie? Bigger lies have been told after all. What's the deal? I *want* to believe climate change is a hoax. It just doesn't look like one to me.
If you're going to appeal to authority by calling him one of the wisest men on the planet, then I'll ad hominem by calling him an anti-Muslim bigot!
He's just trying to close out as many Astro-Turfing tickets before 5 PM
So a radio talk show host, along with a single scientist well known in the community for his outspoken opinions on climate change, on one side of the argument, and then a vast, vast body of peer-reviewed work and many hundreds of disparate and inter-arguing (ie, non-colluding) scientists on the other. Oh, and facts.
Yeah, my mind is open. A talk radio host is not going to change it.
I've never heard the guy's talk show, but you seem to imply that because he has a talk-show he's not worth listening to.
From Wikipedia:
"Prager was raised in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Hilda (née Friedfeld) and Max Prager.[2] He attended Rambam, a Jewish day school and Yeshiva of Flatbush, where he met his future co-author Joseph Telushkin. He majored in Middle Eastern Studies and History at Brooklyn College, graduating in 1970. He went on to study at the Russian Institute (now Harriman Institute) at Columbia University.[3] He speaks, and lectures in several foreign languages, including Russian and Hebrew.[4] He taught Jewish and Russian Elana History at Brooklyn College, and was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, where he did his graduate work at the Russian Institute (now the Harriman Institute) and Middle East Institute from 1970–1972. He is a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He is also the founder of Prager University, a virtual university aimed at educating people through five-minute videos on conservative political and social views. He is the brother of physician and Columbia University faculty member Kenneth Prager and the uncle of former Wall Street Journal reporter Joshua Prager."
You may want to discount him because of his Conservative views, but I don't think you can define him by his talk-show.
Tying the Keystone XL to emissions is clever. Sure the tar sands are amongst the filthiest forms of oil , but if emissions are limited, it really doesn't matter since emissions is the point of the sword that kills and everything else is, in the final analysis irrelevant.
If XL is not built, there is nothing stopping the oil from coming in on rail and it's not clear how punishing that would be to the industry.
Emissions are the business end of all policy. Going after emissions is exactly the right thing to do. It creates the environment where innovative technologies that cut emissions are differentially rewarded by the marketplace. Nothing like enlisting greed in your cause.
If big oil and coal want to develop a zero emission technology then they can light this shit on fire until there's none left and it wouldn't matter one bit.
Another great thing about this policy is it will force the retirement of some of the dirtiest fucking coal plants around the country and stop the creation of new dirty ones since investors aren't going to invest in them if they're never going to see the light of day.
This is exactly the right message to send. Make carbon emission expensive and prohibit the worst of it. Spend big on R and D.
Which we know by Jevons and Khazzoom–Brookes, doesn't work.
The Republitarians will rollover to get Keystone XL passed.
Then they will use the court system to get the environmental part of the deal reduced, and hold the economy hostage for the kill them completely.
But I'm cool with it anyway, just so long as the states have to deal with cleaning up the mess themselves, as opposed to the fed.
The "war on coal" is no less morally sound than the "war on Nazis" was, Godwin be damned.
There should be a rule that whenever there is a power shortage attributable to power plants being shut down due to government regulations, Washington D.C. is the first place that is blacked out.
Whenever a business PR person or business leader uses these excuses:
1. Government regulation
2. Litigation
3. Foreign Dumping
you know he's full of shit.
Remember, in the US the Golden Rule prevails - He who has the most gold makes the rules.
Corporate American has the most Gold (and the 1%'ers who control them). If Government Regulation really hurt them, they was just order their bitches in DC to change the rules - like they did with the tax laws allowing them to pay a much lower rate than the rest of us.
No, this whole government regulations BS is just to fool Joe Sixpack and Jane Q. Public and justify picking their pockets.
In the meantime, they move the jobs overseas to less regulated countries and murder their citizens with shitty working conditions and environments.
Name ANY industry that's bitching about "Government Regulations" and I'll show that not only are they full of shit, but they LOVE the regulations because it increase the barriers to entry.
And everyone on Fox News and Talk Radio are just the propaganda arms of the 1%'ers.
Now get back to work peon.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food, which means less obesity! Now we just need to increase gasoline taxes so they will get more exercise as well. On top of that, high energy consumers, such as, you know, factories, will have to cut down production, perhaps even close down completely, further reducing the pollution! There is just no end to the benefits from artificially inflating the cost of energy.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The problem is that in the years/decades it takes us to finally move away from oil/coal; these regulations today are causing the costs of said products to keep increasing.
Do you really think the corporations will absorb the costs or pass them on to the consumers!?
So, we're going to start trying to nix the primary way we generate electricity...and not go nuclear even though we can recycle buried waste into power...and instead we're going to cut down a bunch of trees on public land and toss up solar and wind farms? Yeah, that's logical.
This is purely political and not about the environment or climate change. The climate changes naturally, and adapts to the creatures (us and everything else on earth) and their affects on it. If anything we should be burning less coal from switching to nuclear plants.
I'll just leave this here. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/MIT-Develops-Meltdown-Proof-Nuclear-Waste-Eating-Reactor.html
Africa has the most to lose with global warming.
And that would be... what? SInce we all know now that global climate change does not specifically mean warming all over.
But if it did mean Africa getting generally warmer, remind me again what life saving air conditioning runs on?
I mean, if you really thought Africa was getting warmer it seems like you would make some allowances to help them, not specifically to yank help away and let more people die than have to. That is, if you wanted to help people at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Pssst... I think he's got his ranking scale inverted. That would put somebody like Ed Witten as the smartest and D.P. at the other end of the scale. He might be off by one too. Did he start counting at 0 or at 1?
The hypothesis to base limiting carbon dioxide emissions on is that they cause damage to the commons.
Fine, if that's so then limiting them is a bad solution. I understand that it may be worth it for the benefits of the activity. That's fine too. Why is any harm allowed free of cost? Publicly fund research to put a dollar figure on the current marginal damage done by carbon dioxide emissions as well as on the cost to cleanup. Take the minimum of those two values and just tax the emissions at that rate, plus maybe a small percentage markup, right from the start. That way costs are borne by the people causing the harm. They are incentivized to minimize harm even at rates under what would have been the cap. Market forces will determine whether it's worth it and by how much and what amount should be prevented versus cleaned.
The two weaknesses here are monitoring, which is just as much a problem with capping, and determining the cost. The research wont come to a perfect solution, but we can improve it over time. It'll have to be reevaluated periodically anyway since the cost is probably non-linear. In any case I don't see how that's more questionable than coming up with the cap figure. Liberals should be happy with this solution since it more strictly limits than what we have today. Conservative should be happy because everyone pays his fair share and the market gets to work. In reality liberals would hate it because it murders the Earth, and conservatives would hate it because it murders jobs. Both hating it seems just as good as both loving it.
Wake me up when he calls for higher gas taxes, cycling infrastructure, and high-speed rail.
If a plant couldn't get shut down because they violated emissions regulations, then none of them would obey emissions regulations. Did you have an alternative solution to climate change that you forgot to mention?
Why not?
I see no mention of any science degrees, he is a political hack.
What, that the mean average temperature would continue to rise, the ocean level would increase, the ice sheets would recede and the [CO2] would increase?
Sure, some of the wildest "worst case" predictions might not have happened, but the overall thing that science has been pointing to for the past 30 years? It has happened as predicted. You can measure that, and we do.
The effects are also measurable, and again, we note those down.
It's only controversial because the answers are incompatible with big businesses making vast profits from coal, oil and other fossils, so they've paid a great deal of money to make sure people *know* it's controversial, because they say it is. Not because it actually is.
Do you really think it will be free?
It costs money to move away from oil and coal.
... in that I don't give a damn about this.
saying pipeline can't be completed unless it cuts greenhouse emissions, Obama has shown himself to be a moron of the highest caliber.
Energy use drives progress and has lengthened human life and quality of life. This fake "environmentalism" is just mask on religion of man-haters.
Real environmentalism and the best thing for the human race is to go to clean and powerful energy sources that are superior to the polluting fossil fuels, such as advanced nuclear reactor designs that can't melt down and have no long-term waste products.
"The speech addressed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 gallons of oil per day from Canada into the U.S. Obama indicated that approval for the pipeline would be tied to emissions goals."
The job of the government is to analyze the proposal and then based on that analysis grant or deny permission preferably providing feedback regarding the proposal. Instead of the government doing its JOB, it is playing politics. The agencies in charge of the evaluation have given their approval with the exception of the White House. The President is tying the approval of this JOB CREATING PROJECT to his political stance. Playing politics again instead of doing its job and accepting or denying based on the merits. :(
Why does that line make you comfortable totally ignoring anything else he says? Poor phrasing? Bad metaphor? Disagreement on the possibility?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
It's just business sense.
1) Those technologies and data center locations save the company money through energy costs and government subsidies. 2) They get to spin it as good PR -- Hey Look at us all green and eco-friendly and carbon neutral!
I'm not disagreeing that they're doing potentially good things, but you're deluded if you think the motives are altruistic.
Someone wrote something about that a couple hundred years ago: "But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only... It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
...but only until it bites you in the ass. Then it turns out that the reality is exceedingly conservative.
"Liberal reality" is a well-known fallacy. In fact "a conservator is a freshly mugged liberal" has predated it by well over a hundred years.
about his climate change plans while Snowden is on the run? Fix the justice system first, then climate stops changing on its own.
The use of fracking technology to recover natural gas has done more to help the climate than any of these plans.
Hyperbole.
You elected him, bozos!
Now the bed is made, sleep in it.
Nighty-night!
Its actually a really good example of what the green movement is, in this troll's attempt to plug a company that is hated for their inability to take any real useful advice from consumers if its not on picket signs outside their door. He created the real world analogy for "climate change" many people working to promote "idea X" there are many fakers, that take something and make it their message for why they're better at complying with the idea than others. Its perfect because its the most abused message of our time, next to terrorism. And at the end of the day someone stands up and acts like they're doing something good for someone somewhere and that causes another guy to stand up in the crowd completely off-topic and describe what a good person he is because he does vaguely good tings for theoretically good causes for invisibly but totally innocent people.
Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
Pie in the sky while American children in Appalachia go to bed hungry every night. Clean coal is as just possible as cost effective solar/wind and its made in America.
Hyperbole
Ah, talking about the church of global warming are we?
Om, nomnomnom...
Do you really think the corporations will absorb the costs or pass them on to the consumers!?
It depends on the market. If all products were priced as cost + fixed profit margin, then yes, an increase in cost would be reflected exactly in retail prices. And so would a decrease in cost.
But of course, retail prices aren't a fixed function of cost, and profit margins aren't fixed. In general, the prices companies charge is set by what the market will bear, not directly by their costs. If they could raise prices and still sell their stuff, they would've done so already, and just pocketed more money. If their costs go up, this does not necessarily mean the price the market will bear will go up the same amount. It depends on a number of factors, such as the structure of their competition, elasticity of demand, elasticity of supply, and so on. In most cases the answer is that it'll be some mixture: cost increases will be partly passed on and partly eaten by the company. Similarly, price decreases tend to be partly passed on and partly pocketed by the company.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The desperate poor will get what they need form wherever it is available. Dark days ahead for the wage thieves and wealth hoarders.
Bam!
Bam! Bam!
Bam!
oh ManBearPig...never mind, what were we talking about"?
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
How did I imply it would be free? I said I was willing to pay $2 in R&D to save $1 in oil. Obviously that means I'm expecting and willing to pay a 2x premium.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
At $0.50-0.60 a watt for today's solar panels, we're almost at the point where people can power their own homes. Unless of course you live where it rains constantly, like the pacific NW, lol. Oh and cloudy days/night time? There are energy storage solutions available - flywheels for example.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Go back and read, I believe you have it wrong, qdos was bought by MS and later became MS-DOS, MS didn't invent the GUI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Rather than picking winners and losers and setting arbitrary limits they should be using carbon and fuel taxes.
Under Obama's plan, operations that could pollute less will pollute exactly their limit, places where higher output and thus higher emissions would be actually more efficient in terms of greenhouse gases per MW will instead operate at lower efficiency, the government will spend billions of dollars subsidizing Solyndra wannabes, and actual gas use by consumers will change little no matter how they try to regulate the auto industry.
With carbon and fuel taxes, consumers and corporations would all have better incentives to improve their emissions, the market would decide the best way to allocate resources, energy innovation would be encouraged, there would be tremendously less deadweight loss, and the government could either reduce other taxes or reduce its absurdly large deficits.
People from all across the political spectrum who are informed and honest agree that this, not hard caps or cap-and-trade, is the way to go. But politicians like Obama would rather trash the nation's economy and not actually accomplish any climate progress than touch the third rail of fossil fuel taxes.
In a "town hall" conversation where I brought this up with my Congresscritter- a Tea Party diehard who I'm frequently frustrated with- I was shocked to hear him admit that raising gas taxes and using the revenue to either reduce deficits or reduce taxes on productive behavior is a very good idea. But, he said, it'll never fly, so I'm not going to try to push it. If everybody who knew it's the right thing to do got behind it and tried to educate the populace rather than hiding behind a smokescreen, pretty soon the idea would fly, with bipartisan support.
Ah, a radio show transcript. Isn't it funny how the wisest people on earth all have radio shows rather than jobs where they have to do so much as put on clothing for the camera?
You've never listened to Radio 4, have you? (Sorry if that doesn't work wherever you happen to be.) I recommend The Life Scientific, which is quite a pleasant talk show where scientists (duh) come on and talk about their particular fields. Plus, it's hosted by an actual scientist and, in a breaking move for the Beeb, one that hasn't been in a boy band.
If science isn't your bag then give "In Our Time" a try. The topics are much more varied but you do get Melvyn Bragg (chancellor of a University and a fellow of more British academic institutions than I care to list).
You'd think a FEW of them would, I dunno, work as scientists or something.
When one's radio obligations consist of barely more than one morning/afternoon per week, one generally finds plenty of time to pursue a career in whatever.
tl;dr Having a face fit for TV is not a pre-requisite for wisdom and there are a great number of radio shows hosted by the wise ones; I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer on TV.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
I replied to the AC bitching about the cost, not you.
Technology like the type that Mantra Venture Capital Group (MVTG) has been working on for a while now would lower carbon pollution without much (if any) of a cost increase. Industry just needs an incentive to go out and use this technology (ie to not have to pay for carbon pollution).
1. The Farallon islands were connected to the land 20,000 years ago. The San Francisco Bay was dry land with a river valley in it. There have been several incarnation of the California coastline, radically altered due to advancing and receding glaciers during what are, in geological terms, a short period of time.
2. This was by no mean a North American phenomenon. It was global. The Great Barrier reef near Australia is also very young. Aborigines once hunted Kangaroo where the fish now swim and the coral grows. Loss of the reef would be annoying to some humans, but no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
3. In even more recent times there was the "little ice age" and the medieval warm period. Civilizations were around during those times. Some did well, others less well. If anything, the cooler climates were harder on Europe; but the increase in shipping which brought plague rats to Europe probably caused more grief than anything else.
I worry a heck of a lot more about the next bird flu from China than I do that my 9 year old nephew will have to move up a mile inland when he's an old man.
By the time it all goes to hell, I'll be long gone, dead and in the ground. And if anyone *is* still around that wants to curse my name or my generation, I'll be DEAD..and not terribly bothered about it.
I'm only here on earth a short time...and gonna enjoy my life to the fullest while I'm here, I see no reason to start sacrificing my time and effort for anything that won't really affect me nor anyone I know immediately alive now.
"I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames."
- Jim Morrison
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why not?
I see no mention of any science degrees,
Huh, wasn't aware that "science degree holder" was a requirement for holding a valid opinion.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Here are a few thoughts for you:
1. Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'. What we have now, is not normal yet. The cavemen must have burned a helluvalot of wood to bring the last ice age to an end...
2. Layered coal seams. Each seam represents a period of 150 to 200 million years of fern covered swamps. We are now in a cold period, before the next coal seam will be created.
3. Medieval mini ice age. The earth is still colder than it was during the height of the Roman empire, when people produced wine in England.
4. The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert. Humans only mess with a small percentage of the earth's surface and in those areas, we mostly replace wild grass with special grass, bisons with cows, boar with pigs, birds with chickens etc. Farming is controlled by the climate and farmers only produce what will grow in that particular area - they don't really change anything, while the surface area covered by cities is very small indeed.
5. Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference. If you heat the atmosphere slightly, heat is radiated faster into space.
6. What caused those hot swampy periods? Dinosaur farts?
7. Climate change is real, but man has precious little to do with it, if anything.
Just think about things rationally.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Climate change is not a hoax we know already the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles, it's just absurd to think in 100 years we have impacted enough to speed this cycle.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Ice melting isn't a lie, but it isn't exactly honest, either.
Yes, some glaciers are melting, but others are growing. Depending where you get your information from, you'll see huge differences in the data. You'll hear that all that ice melting is causing rising sea levels, but that's not exactly the case. More often than not, the sea level rise will come from a model, not an actual measurement. There really hasn't been any significant difference in sea levels in the last 100 years.
Basically, people can be very manipulative and exaggerate claims about this climate stuff.
The climate does change. You should learn about the cycles of ice ages that all happened before man burned coal. Look at the difference in temperature, CO2, etc between the dinosaurs and now for example. It is very possible that activities of man will affect the climate, but many other things have also.
Yes. I'm suggesting that with so many voices to listen to out there and little time, I've completely given up on radio show hosts in general. There are exceptions, but skimming through the transcript I found that line, which suggested that this guy was not one of those exceptions.
at the word "metric".
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
When the feds put a coal plant out of business because of more stringent emissions standards make it uneconomical to operate, then regulations put it out of business.
Plants that are economical now will not be soon solely due to actions of the Feds.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I am not a climate scientist. So someone please help me to understand how and why the ice caps melting is a perfectly okay thing? I'm not asking whether or not the ice caps melting is man made.
Yes, implicit in your question is the assumption it is human caused. If you thought it wasn't caused by us, then your question is moot. Good or bad, it's going to happen. The question is not "is this good?", but "how do we deal with it?" For example, the people in Pompeii probably didn't stop to ask "is this good or bad", they had a grasp on the situation and lept right to the question "how do I get out of here?" Those who sat pondering "is this good or bad" are the ones we find in the archeological digs.
How is it not climate change?I have an extremely open mind. Just lay out some reasons why it's not climate change. ... I *want* to believe climate change is a hoax. It just doesn't look like one to me.
The important question is not "is climate change a hoax", the important question is "can we do anything to stop it?" That, of course, contains the implicit assumption that we are causing it. It's all this "correlation is not causation" stuff writ large. If you see something happening and you don't remove the actual causal forcing, then it will keep happening. If all you do is stop the correlated activity, you'll be left wondering why the thing you are trying to stop isn't stopping.
As for the original article, I find the claim that we'll stop helping developing countries unless they build their things the way we tell them to to be counterproductive. "Spend extra money getting to the same level of development we are at or we won't help you get there." Oh, you want to keep us down. We'll build our plants doing it our way as we can afford, and if it doesn't have "sequestration" that's too bad. You lost any right to tell us how to do things when you walked away from the table.
You can have all the opinions you want. If you want me to seriously consider them you might want to have some actual credentials or education, or even a functional understanding of the topic.
How did I imply it would be free? I said I was willing to pay $2 in R&D to save $1 in oil. Obviously that means I'm expecting and willing to pay a 2x premium.
That's a 1x premium.
A premium is on top of the standard price. It is the amount which is over. It is 2 - 1 = 1.
The same goes when saying shit is x times faster or x % bigger.
A 10 inch cock is twice as big as a 5 inch cock. It is 2 times as big. It is 200% the size.
A 10 inch cock is once bigger than a 5 inch cock. It is 1 time bigger. It is 100% bigger in size.
If emission regulations keep getting tighter and tighter and tighter, how to you expect any plant to be able to operate?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So?
My factory to sell water as medicine was legal at one point, today it is not.
Why should I be subsidizing your coal plant by you not paying for externalities?
Airplane crashes because the owner or operator failed to follow regulations. Damn the FAA!
And when the IRS wants 10% more each year just because, and without respect to your income, they will soon run you into bankruptcy, not because you screwed up your taxes.
Same thing here. Emissions of X is legal now, but will soon be illegal. If they manage to reduce it to meet the new standards, they will ratchet it down again until it is not economically feasible to operate.
HE FUCKING SAID THIS IN 2008
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Fuck your externalities and fuck you.
GP said when the feds put power plants out of business, they should be the first to be blacked out.
If we continue to pollute and drive climate change, the environment will become inhospitable and people will die as a result. A lot more. We could, alternatively, actually do something to address poverty after we stop destroying the planet. But, you know, Republicans hate the poor and they have the power, so...
If their costs go up, this does not necessarily mean the price the market will bear will go up the same amount.
The price the market will bear depends upon the competition driving prices down. At the very bottom end of that drive, however, is profit. A company that does not profit cannot stay in business. It can't pay the employees or the suppliers and it doesn't have employees or suppliers eventually. Very hard to be a company if you don't have employees or suppliers.
If you note, the increased costs of oil have driven prices up well beyond what anyone would have imagined a decade or two ago. The market apparently bears that newer price.
But your analysis reminds me of an old joke. Two widget companies are competing, one of them selling at a price well below the other. The one CEO asks the other how he can sell widgets so far below the cost of manufacturing them. The answer? "What I don't get in profits I make up in volume.".
That's a pretty fucking lame analogy.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This has nothing to do with saving the planet. It's a totally transparent (!) and cynical attempt to change the subject away from the web of scandals entangling Obama.
So?
It used to be legal to sell all kinds of crap that is not legal now. Making coal plants either clean up or shutdown sounds great to me.
...ok. Is this because he's talking about scientists specifically? The same phrase applied to other groups (patent lawyers or politicians, for example) would be just as much of a subjective statement, wouldn't it? How might he have asked the question differently so that you would have been something other than dismissive...or is it the question itself you disliked?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
There is no such thing as scientific facts.
Science can only prove a negative in principle (To claim otherwise is the "affirming the consequent" fallacy), and in practice even this is probably impossible due to multiple auxiliary hypotheses/factors that may be blamed for any falsification (see Duhem and/or Quine) . It often follows the "transposing the conditional" fallacy that inevitably occurs somewhere after a researcher calculates a p-value. The method of calculating these p-values is itself based on numerous assumptions that are always false to some unknown extent. There is also the historical accident that what is taught to most scientists is a incoherent conflation of the neyman-pearson and fisher approaches to interpreting this p-value. Why a bayesian approach can sometimes lead to different conclusions than a proper frequentist (ie not fisher-NP hybrid) interpretation is also an interesting question.
All this should be considered before we get into specifics of the field and sources of measurement error if we wish to claim something as anything near a fact.
Then you should be the first fucker to sit in the dark.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yea, noone on NPR has EVER provided any insight. Radio sucks, rite?
(for the record, Im a republican, but the only right-wing radio I've heard is pretty obnoxious. NPR can be obnoxious and has its own issues, but at least they dont yell)
I get my power from hydro.
Care to try again?
Why can't we build new sources of power? Why are you so attached to coal?
If YOU want to force others to build new plants, we'll just send your hydro to them and you can build something else.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You can have all the opinions you want. If you want me to seriously consider them you might want to say something I agree with.
Fixed that for you.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
How about banning the auto dealer laws that some states use to block competition, which are preventing electric car manufacturers like Tesla from becoming more popular?
Moving to electric cars is not THE answer to climate change problems, but it's a part of it, and getting rid of such ridiculous restrictions is a pretty low-hanging-fruit thing to do.
True. But if you agree that emitting CO2 is a bad thing -- a bad thing that may be thought of as a cost -- and that the regulation more or less accurately captures that cost, (I appreciate that these are a lot of assumptions, but they're necessary to isolate the issue that we're talking about) then all the regulation does is to capture a previously external cost as an internal economic one. The plants that go out of business in this environment will be the ones that the regulations reveal to have been a net consumer, not a producer, of value all along. I wouldn't lose much sleep about that.
caritj.org
It would be nice if we could see some political pressure to put more effort into studying iron fertilization to soak up excess carbon. By most accounts, we missed the boat on preventing climate change through limiting our emissions, we might at least look into more proactive solutions.
Why?
I am not the person who decided to invest in something that is going to become illegal. You pays your moneys and you takes your chances. Grow up, kiddo.
If you really can't deal with the thought of any regulation please feel free to move to Somalia.
Since peaking in 2005, US carbon emissions have dropped a gigaton per year. This was mainly due to switching almost half of coal-powered to electricity to cheaper and cleaner natural gas. This is near the goal [unratified] Kyoto treaty of 5% below 1990 levels. Since this was acheived by market forces rather than government regulation, Obama and environmentalists almost completely ignore this achievement. Obamas new proposal will lower US CO2 output even more.
I never said that, but I bet arguing against straw men sure is more fun.
Why would I believe this nitwit anymore than someone who claims the lizard people from the dark side of the moon communicate to him through his fillings?
How's that poop taste libertarian?
Today coal. Tomorrow it's natural gas.
You fuckers don't want nuclear and watch out! Environmental wackos want to take away your hydro.
It has happened as predicted.
Wrong.
How so?
It is something that used to be legal that no longer is. There is nothing that grants you a right to make a profit. You can try, but that is it.
That is the risk you take. It used to be legal to dump industrial waste into streams. It no longer is. That likely put some folks out of business.
Yes, greater than 97% of scientists agree that the average temperature has been going up slighty over the last century). That's pretty much all they agree on.
It is something that used to be legal that no longer is.
It is illegal to sell water? Someone better tell Coke and Pepsi and Evian and ...
It may be illegal to sell water that you call medicine, but it is also illegal to sell electricity and call it medicine, too. The issue is not a prohibition on how you label something, it is a prohibition on how it is produced, which makes your analogy specious.
You can spend as much as you like and it won't make any difference in the foreseeable future. There is no magical other source of energy. The bulk of energy can come from coal, gas, oil, and nuclear; pick one or more. Solar and wind are still far too expensive, and you can't artificially force their prices to come down. Of course, if you believe in cold fusion...
If someone said that "politicians have all sold their souls", I'd call that hyperbole too. "Hysterical overblown nonsense" might be a more applicable phrase, but I'm trying to be polite.
Claiming that an entire global profession are corrupted and paid-for shills (or worse- actively evil (depending on how metaphorical/literal the phrase has been meant)) is somewhere between inflammatory rhetoric and tinfoil-hat conspiracy.
Yea. You just try getting funding for a program to look for actual solutions past the republicans. We already have an actual solution. Its called building a massive solar thermal complex in the southwestern desert and rolling out an upgrade to the national power grid. Invest a trillion dollars in it over the next 10 years and you can replace over half of our dirty power plants with clean solar thermal with salt reservoirs producing power 24/7.
You sound like the guys who run the asbestos mine around here.
Don't you know conceit has a liberal bias?
FTFY.
I want nuclear.
I fail to see what is wrong with eventually abandoning Natural gas too. Why not?
Ending our reliance on fossil fuels should be something popular on a website for tech enthusiasts.
Dinosaurs are walking the earth, they just got old and all their teeth fell out.
Have you looked at a chicken recently?
The stupidity of their stubborn resistance is that a project like this would be a huge boon for states that are solidly Republican.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Who is this "they" you speak of? Some unidentifiable group of "evil rich guys"? Don't be stupid. Most companies are publicly traded: it's mostly people like you and I that "pocket" that money.
Heck, prices may even go down, but so may salaries. In the end, "prices" just don't matter. If it takes 10% more labor or raw materials to produce the same output, then we are 10% poorer. No accounting tricks or inflation are going to help with that.
But the rest of it about Bill Gates having the authroity to decide who lives and who does not is on target, right?
I agree that might not have been the best fit, so I have a better one:
It used to be legal to dump industrial waste into rivers and streams, it no longer is. That put plants out of business too.
We have all kinds of prohibitions on how things are produced. We have even regulated the output of coal power plants for a long time. I see no issue with this continuing. I flatly fail to see how anyone can defend them. They used mountain topping which not only destroys mountains but also pollutes waterways for production of coal and in the burning of it release all kinds of waste into the air. Then they take the remaining garbage and put it in ponds.
There is no simple one step answer to all of this (and iron fertilization is certainly not as simple or safe as it seems), regardless of any method we take, we still have to lower emissions before anything we do will even start to make a dent.
Wrong [dailymail.co.uk]
Yes, they are. On just about everything. What's your point?
I hope you're continuing the joke, otherwise the *woosh* noise you likely just heard must have been deafening.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
By not expecting the rest of us to keep subsidizing them by letting them use up a scarce shared resource (clean air), so the businesses which can actually be profitable without dumping lots of their costs on everybody else are the ones that survive?
... (aka www.wattsupwiththat.com) has some comments on the good parts of Obama plan, but has some comments about the bad and ugly parts too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/the-presidents-climate-action-plan-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
I am not the person who decided to invest in something that is going to become illegal.
People do not choose to "invest" in how their local power company makes electricity. Their local power company makes power and the people buy it from them because they don't have anyone else to buy it from. The ones who live in an area that have dams for hydro get hydro power. Those who live where there is a nuke plant get nuclear power. Those who live where coal is the power plant of choice get coal.
I'm not going to send $10 to my power company and demand that they build a nuke plant because I don't want them to do coal, it would be a waste of time and money.
If you really can't deal with the thought of any regulation
Hyperbole much?
Just go around the system and flip the public the bird. This bastard should be out back of the white house swinging at the end of a rope. As well as anyone that does not actively stand in his way of shredding the constitution.
$2 in R&D, 10$ in "redistribution" through the UN, 20$ in graft to politically connected cronies...
OIL!
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Basically, people can be very manipulative and exaggerate claims about this climate stuff.
Case in point:
Yes, some glaciers are melting, but others are growing.
In this report: http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb11/wgms_2011_gmbb11.pdf you'll find that close to 90% of earths glaciers are shrinking. The remainder are indeed growing allowing fodder for misdirection and doubt as quoted above. But since the 70's there has been an extreme downward trend in overall glacial mass. Now for melting ice causing sea levels to rise, again, that isn't the whole story. The main source of sea level rise is thermal expansion from warming oceans. More often than not you'll get models because models are cheaper to create than satellites. However, the satellites that are already in orbit do a great job of measuring exactly how much the ocean has indeed actually risen in the past 100 years (over 1mm/year, 3mm/year in the past decade fyi) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise.
Feel free to use or spin these scientific observations as your pre-conceived notions see fit.
Not to mention, the larger pieces of tech from the obsolete "dirty" power equipment all ends up in countries that don't give a fuck about their pollution index. *coughcough China cough*
I'm all for regulating that we try and reduce polluting emissions and develop renewable sources, but seriously? A plan to deal with storms like hurricane Sandy? Are you serious? Does the government have some classified tech to help target and redirect hurricanes or something? Of course not, they'll just mandate more "dirty" fuel restrictions...
It's interesting that he cares about the planet for generations to come, but only if we can put our children's children in un-needed debt. Let's discuss something a little more pressing, shall we Mr. President?
"The speech addressed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 gallons of oil per day from Canada into the U.S. Obama indicated that approval for the pipeline would be tied to emissions goals."
He totally missed the point. We're not worried about air emissions. We're worried about pipeline spills and the abuse of eminent domain being used to take people's land and homes. Kill KeystoneXL.
I got mine!
The question is "Can we go to the moon?" and that contains the implicit assumption that we left the moon.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Fossil fuels won't last forever anyway, so it's not like investments in alternative energy sources (including nuclear *fission*) go down the drain.
Ah, yes, credentialism. Because only people with Ph.Ds should be allowed to have opinions. That's such a great idea for a functioning representative government.
A stint working at a university cleared me from ever thinking that people with doctorates are any more qualified than anyone else. Shit, these people sent me viruses, email hoaxes, and malware worms all the time.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
That's science right there!
Maybe you want to go see how much carbon we're putting into the atmosphere every year and try to pretend that would have no impact.
Might change your beliefs a bit.
This was an opportunity for O to really shine. He speaks of what he will stop, but does not speak of what will replace it. That is as stupid as 'drill, baby, drill' mantra chant of the neo-cons. I had hopes that he would have enough backbone to say that the US needs nukes and then push for thorium as well as IFR.
And as to Keystone, by allowing it to go through, he helps to lower the price of oil which helps the global economy, which makes it possible to build A.E. cheaper.
I think that he is allowing the neo-con's accusations to get to him.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Um, yea, just about all glaciers on the planet are melting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Guess what? Not all the water goes into the sea. A lot of it goes into the atmosphere.
Can you address the points found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
especially under "Anthropogenic CO2 increase"?
He wasn't saying that. What he was essentially saying is that it would be nice if the power grid could be reconfigured such that if too many coal plants are shut down and there is a shortage of electrical power, it would be nice if Washington D.C. lost power first.
Oh and before anyone gets pedantic about it, yes, I know the power grid cannot be configured that way.
Fight the Carbon! Ban the Flat Earthers! Carbon must be stopped before it kills us ALL!
Carbon pollution is unadulterated EVIL that must be STOPPED! The top reasons to support Obama's plan to limit and reduce carbon pollution:
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
'Climate Change' and 'global warming' are nothing but military/industrial complex trolling the world conversation...
Here's something everyone agrees on, on all sides: Pollution harms the environment.
By definition...it's human action...pollution exists. The notion from this 'Dennis Prager wisest men on the planet' crap is IRRELEVANT to the political discussion. Whether melting caps is natural or not has **no impact** on the Federal Government's legal need to regulate pollution.
That's what arguing about 'climate change' and 'global warming' does for the polluters, gives them a straw man to let them keep **polluting**
Pollution exists and with certainty businesses will (especially in the USA) pollute as much as their profit margins allow for in the end.
Thank you Dave Raggett
False, and also false.
That was a local phenomenon, not global.
And it takes just one straw to break the camel's back (or one wafer-thin mint to explode Mr. Creosote).
Unfortunately, we're melting the ice caps (which reflect radiation back into space), and water vapor creates a temperature feedback. That means as the earth warms, the warming will accelerate.
Changes in the orbit of the earth.
False.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
You can have all the opinions you want. If you want me to seriously consider them...
Ah, there's the breakdown - you seem to be under the impression that the rest of the world gives a rat's ass what smarmy internet know-it-alls think.
We don't. In fact, we don't even care to see your 'credentials' - everything we need to know is laid plain and clear in the content of your posts.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think the piece about dealing with hurricanes was meant to mean better dealing with surviving them, not prevent them with magical pixie fairies.
It's obvious to anyone with no anti-Obama bias effecting their interpratation (if that's not right word, sorry, not my native language) of everything so they see something other than what it obvious means - something they can call laughable.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
We already have an actual solution. Its called building a massive solar thermal complex in the southwestern desert
Solar thermal projects all over the world are being cancelled because they can no longer compete with solar PV. I don't think this is the "actual solution" we are looking for.
Invest a trillion dollars in it over the next 10 years ...
Maybe we should find something that actually makes economic sense before we add another trillion to our national debt.
I think the only "understanding" we need is your description of how great Obama's cock tastes in your mouth. The guy could advocate killing puppies, limiting humans to 30 years of life, and burning the homes of everyone that is late on their tax payments and you would find a way to justify the ideas.
So, come on, tell us again how it tastes.
Ah, yes, credentialism. Because only people with Ph.Ds should be allowed to have opinions. That's such a great idea for a functioning representative government.
Well sure! Why do you think our government operates so smoothly, without issue or error? Obviously because it's the nigh exclusive domain of heavily credentialed lawyers! /sarc
A stint working at a university cleared me from ever thinking that people with doctorates are any more qualified than anyone else. Shit, these people sent me viruses, email hoaxes, and malware worms all the time.
I learned a thing or two about the "Piled higher and Deepers" when I worked for a local college myself, but the real eye-opener for me was meeting the honorary PhD holding sociopath my wife used to work for (who, I shit you not, liked to brandish a loaded handgun while 'disciplining' workers); I thought, "Jesus, if they gave this lunatic asshole a doctorate, I have to assume it those things are no longer worth the paper they're printed on!"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Linking to the daily mail.
Oh man, you're funny.
Oh wait, you were serious?! Let me laugh even harder.
I think his argument is typically referred to as "appeal to authority". It's the same argument used for the so-called "journalist protection" bill that Obama says he could support. Of course he could, even though he would send drones to take out Assange and Snowden if he could. It would be an opportunity to define what a "journalist" is, and if your opinion can't be controlled, you would not be defined as a journalist and your free speech rights would be void.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
When I say "fact" I mean "we measured the temperature of x place for y years using a calibrated instrument, and here is the data".
Those are facts.
What you then do with those facts is called science.
I see you don't read many journals.
It's ok, I know it takes time.
Most people, I find, aren't really aware of the ramifications of Administrative Law and the evolution of the Executive Branch. Over the past couple of centuries, Congress had passed laws and created agencies under the purview of the President to administrate. Over time, this has resulted in a massive federal system of administrative agencies who have the power to issue regulations based on their interpretation of the law. This has been found Constitutional, since it's nothing but the natural outgrowth of "Congress makes laws, the President executes them," but sometimes it produces shocking results to the lay person. Kind of like the patent system and "limited time," perhaps the administrative apparatus has gone far beyond its original intent, but by the letter of the law, that's perfectly fine. It's a matter for the voters and Congress to fix it, not the courts.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The obvious lie in "Climate Change" is that the definition changes during any discussion. If by "Climate Change" you mean the same changing of the climate that has been going on since the Earth was formed, no one would argue with you. No one believes that we have ever been in some magical static time for the climate. That definition is only used to "prove" that "Climate Change" is real. It is also a definition of "Climate Change" that does not require or even suggest any change in human behavior.
The definition of "Climate Change" that requires any action by humans is the definition that says humans are significantly altering the climate in ways that are inconsistent with what would happen naturally.
One of the things that makes many people skeptical of Anthropomorphic Climate Change is that the "Climate Change" boosters shift back and forth between the two definitions. When someone starts out their argument with a lie, it throws everything they say afterwords into question. When they are questioned and their responses quickly degrade into ad hominem attacks, it confirms their deceptions. Even if they are correct, it becomes clear that being correct is just an accident. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to try to deceive you into believing them.
So, to answer your question, no one is claiming that there is not "Climate Change". They are arguing that there is not "Climate Change".
Why is it out of line to expect actual expertise from someone giving an expert opinion? I wouldn't trust a climatologist to fix my car; I wouldn't trust my mechanic to treat me if I were ill; and I don't expect a professional demagogue--like this radio host of yours--to be an expert at anything but demagoguery.
Shut up already. It's SCIENCE!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So data=fact ? I would just use the term data in that case since it conveys a sense of error.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food, which means less obesity!
Imagine how much weight they'll lose if droughts like last year's put an end to meat and dairy production. Global warming will make America a vegan's dream come true!
There is just no end to the benefits from artificially inflating the cost of energy.
Oh, if only they could save us as much as dumping the costs of production on our children and grandchildren has!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well you can ignore the law of supply and demand, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring the law of supply and demand.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The House needs more things to vote to repeal over and over, Obamacare just isn't enough to keep them occupied.
The "modern" interpretation of Smith is rather self-serving in that it makes light of externalities and plundering the commons. Of course, Smith himself recognised these problems.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Excuse me if I don't buy into your psuedoscience rag.
Hear, hear!
Carbon is not a pollutant, it is an element.
I'm all for limiting actual pollutants like carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen; just not so much limiting things that ARE NOT HARMFUL.
I'd much rather have nuclear power plants instead of coal, the fission reactors put much LESS radiation in to the atmosphere.
Considering climate scientists have been wrong way more then they have been right, I'm willing to wait this one out.
How narcist of you. Or selfish - selfish is not necessary narcist, though narcist always is selfish, I know, but your message sounded a bit narcistic...
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
It used to be legal to dump industrial waste into streams. It no longer is. That likely put some folks out of business.
It also used to be legal to move dirt from one part of your yard to another to keep a low spot from having standing water for several days after a rain. It is no longer. And it has made some people's land entirely worthless. And it's the same law - they just call dirt "pollution" and standing storm water "navigable waters". And that is how good intentions are used to allow tyrants to rule.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Yea. You just try getting funding for a program to look for actual solutions past the republicans. We already have an actual solution. Its called building a massive solar thermal complex in the southwestern desert and rolling out an upgrade to the national power grid. Invest a trillion dollars in it over the next 10 years and you can replace over half of our dirty power plants with clean solar thermal with salt reservoirs producing power 24/7.
Not reaally how do you expect to pay for this?
The US is broke and hasn't learnt that yet.
17 Trillion and counting plus massive unfunded debt. Oh my
And you read the leaked email about the editors of said reviewed publications making sure anything they disagree with wasn't peer reviewed and published?
You can spend as much as you like and it won't make any difference in the foreseeable future. There is no magical other source of energy
Wind is almost at price parity with dirty coal. Solar/wind prices are dropping exponentially. It will only be 5 or so years before coal/oil cannot compete with renewables on price alone, and we'll only be using them because of the huge investment in existing plants. Add another 20 years to the equation, and people who still use carbon energy will be flushing money down the toilet.
All of this thanks to huge R&D investments in Germany, China and USA. The free market comes after. It relies on the structure of society and social norms. It isn't a magic bullet. We would not be in this position if it wasn't for big government science dollars, which is just a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Dear anonymous coward idiot. Can you find a scientific paper that makes the same claim the daily mail made? Of course not, since you only need linear regression and a course data set to see that the daily mail is full of it. If you believe these has been no warming since 1998, then check out this video, do the linear regression yourself (ocean temperatures are better, since they contain most of the heat capacity), witness the cherry picking in action, and learn that political discourse is fast and loose with the truth.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That plant is currently using the atmosphere as an unregulated exhaust pipe for its waste. Guess you think society should pick up the tab, right?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That's pretty much all they agree on.
Do you learn that listening to right-wing talk radio? Or were you reading some right-wing blog? Let me guess, you think you know something about the issues and what real scientists think. Because those people on those blogs, they speak the /truth/, and you have /fact/ and /logic/ on your side.
On another note, do you know what the cognitive bubble is?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Let's discuss something a little more pressing, shall we Mr. President?
At risk of being modded into oblivion as a troll, this speech today happened exactly because of those "more pressing" matters.
The dude (and many of his acolytes, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) are being slammed with demands that the NSA knock off their rolling 4th Amendment violations program, that the IRS stop targeting political opponents, and a whole host of other scandals that the White House just can't seem to shake.
So, what do you do when you find yourself in trouble? Go talk about hot-button issues that your supporters love and care about - it makes your supporters love you again, and your opponents go talk about something else until that something else dies down or gets forgotten. Poll number drooping among your supporters due to missteps? Talk about gay marriage. IRS caught targeting groups who oppose you? Make abortion pills OTC for teenage girls. You lose an embassy due to incompetence and you get caught spinning the story badly? Seize a tragedy and bring up gun control. Your NSA and Justice Department get caught violating the crap out of everyone's rights and even the New York Times is hating on you for it? Talk about climate change.
To be perfectly fair, if Obama had an "(R)" after his name, he'd bring up anti-abortion initiatives, immigration controls, and similar... The point is that there's a whole lot of political moves that are equivalent to a "Look over there!" maneuver, and it's getting pretty blatant. So before you go shouting "flamebait", stop and think about this for a minute. These initiatives and changes comes pretty hot on the heels of any scandal that threatens to wake up (and more frighteningly, enrage) the public en masse...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
FYI - Greenhouse gasses comprise less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, and we've increased the concentration of the most abundant one by almost 40% in the last hundred years.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
That's big of you. Lemme guess, you have no children, and you'll never have grandchildren. And as for your fellow man, well...does ethics ring a bell, empathy, sympathy...poor people in nations about to be inundated by ocean water mean nothing to you?
I hope this is sarcasm, because the Montreal Protocol is widely hailed as one of the greatest successes in international cooperation and pollution control. As a result of the treaty, ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere (as measured in equivalent chlorine) have declined by 10%, and the ozone hole over Antarctica is poised to have resorted by 1 million square km (of a peak of 25 million square km) by 2015.
Really, the only failure of the Montreal Protocol was the promotion of HCFC-22 which does less ozone damage but is a major greenhouse gas. (It's being phased out for more ozone-safe refrigerants, but it'll be up there for centuries.)
Does anyone remember the introduction of catalytic converters for cars? What was it we were told? We were told the converters would convert the noxious emissions into harmless water...and carbon dioxide.
Well, when the alternative is carbon monoxide, unburned gasoline, and NOx, I think we'll take the CO2 and water. But just because it's non-toxic doesn't mean that it's not a pollutant.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Peer review is stupid. Most scientific papers are proven frauds.
Unless you are over 70 you are not "longgine and dead in the ground". The big bang in climate change is far less than 30 years in the future: if nothing significantly is going to happen NOW!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I could demand the same from you. Do you have any credentials :) ?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Easy answer. Raise taxes.
PV isn't a 24/7 solution and requires exotic materials for the high quality cells, with undeveloped mass production processes. Solar thermal can run 24/7 and does not require exotic materials with the a simple mechanical production process that can rapidly scale.
Just for the record, the Arctic icecap melting isn't such a big deal if you are wondering about sea level rise (Arctic ice floats, melting it won't increase the sea level). However, Arctic tundra unfreezing means more carbon in the atmosphere, it's a feedback loop. Also, the Arctic unfreezing could change ocean currents. It might change the climate in Europe and other places.
If Greenland melts, that's a different story since that ice is on land. Melting all of it will raise the sea level between 11 and 22 feet. We'd have to say goodbye to NYC, Miami, etc. If Antarctica melts as well, say Hello to Waterworld.
So all the hand-wringing from the climate change deniers over what restrictions would be necessary to corral the problem and thereby tank the economy would be moot because the economy would be under water. So, basically, the question is, "Do ya feel lucky, punk?". The deniers claim they do feel lucky, even though they are placing a bet with the rest of our asses on the line.
Fuck you. I have only a few more decades on this planet and I intend to party every day. This takes cash and I can't afford ridiculus tax rates to pay for the luxury lifestile of future idiots and foriners.
What is it about CO2 being a greenhouse gas you do not understand?
How about we make hydro illegal, its bad for salmon.
Why do you hate the environment so much you think its ok to dam off a river for your personal use?
I'm not the one that decided to run my own electricity on something that should be illegal. You pays your moneys and takes your chances. Grow up.
I see, so semiconductors are built on a tissue of non-facts? Lemme guess, you are from the year 1000.
fact=useful concept? What is the current definition of fact?
Wow. What a great open minded community. I get modded as a Troll for having a differing opinion. Reading through the comment replies, I'm wondering if the most ardent and viscous detractors even read the transcript. He was interviewing a knowledgeable and credentialed scientist. Despite the fact that there is some sort of universal thought amongst the loudest young and not well educated in critical thinking graduates of leftist teaching colleges and universities, that Global Warming (I won't succumb to the Left's attempts to control the conversation by changing words and definitions) is not a given by some of the leading scientists in the scientific community. Shouting down and mocking thoughtful conservatives and people who just don't swallow the Kool-aid isn't helpful to America.
Shut up, Stupid,
PV isn't a 24/7 solution
PV produces electricity in the midday when demand is highest, especially on hot summer days when the demand is even higher. PV certainly isn't THE solution. But is better than solar thermal. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single solar thermal project under construction anywhere in the world. PV has displaced it completely for all new solar installations.
and requires exotic materials for the high quality cells, with undeveloped mass production processes.
Solyndra used exotic materials. Solyndra is also bankrupt. Current producers are using more conventional processes. The Chinese seem to be doing mass production just fine. Mass production has failed in the west because our governments tried to "pick winners" and ended up directing subsidies into losers instead (Solyndra, etc.).
you can't artificially force their prices to come down.
Yes you can. A number of EU countries collectively have artificially forced the prices of solar panels down several-fold over the timespan of less than half a decade. This is how it went: subsidize rooftop panels ==> surge in demand ==> surge in production and private R&D (with some help form public R&D funding) ==> economies of scale and more efficient production methods ==> market saturation ==> price collapse
And then the twist ending ==> subsidies not longer as necessary ==> wave of consolidations ==> massive losses for solar shareholders but prices stay nice and low. Because there's a flip side to every coin.
NPR can be obnoxious and has its own issues, but at least they dont yell
NPR is generally ok except for Bill Moyers. Man that guy is annoying.
And you're right about the yelling, and I'm not even too old to use age as an excuse for disliking it.
My larger question is...who cares if it is climate change natural or man made?
By the time it all goes to hell, I'll be long gone, dead and in the ground. And if anyone *is* still around that wants to curse my name or my generation, I'll be DEAD..and not terribly bothered about it.
If you're actively working against future generations, I'm not sure why the younger folk don't take you out now. You're clearly a waste, so what would be the point of leaving you around to party?
Haha, I think someone got his acccount hacked. If the weird unsubstantiated story didn't give it away, the sig does.
*Sigh* Really didn't mean to start a flame-war, but wow. you guys are all so not even willing to talk about the issues. To debate civilly and kindly. It's sad really. This is why I think people on the Left are so not worth debating most of the time. It goes to a hyperbolic ragefest immediately. If you'd do a bit a of googling there are quite a few highly credentialed climate scientists who are not going along with the crowd. Here's one. http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/global-warming-is-a-bunch-of-hooey-legendary-professor-of-scientific-climatology/ There's more (including the top Harvard/Yale(?) climate scientist (can't remember his name right now and i'm very tired but you can google if you are even the least open-minded) who was basically ostracized by scientists being paid off by grants and more worried about getting their funding than facts.
Yeah, just one thing I'm interested about your post: what is this "normal", and how do you define a certain point more "normal" than others? Is there a scientifically proven "normal" temperature of earth?
Yeah, I know... no... but maybe you meant something else?
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Tell me... is there any justification for society to keep you around? After all, the point of organising into a society is not to feed people like you, but to benefit from cooperation. If you want to be a leech, why not lynch you and be better off, as we have absolutely no obligations towards you.
Assuming the data has been gathered faithfully, yes, data in this case is a fact. You know the temperature at x time, in y place because it was measured . This becomes a fact.
Not all data is factual though - statistical data created from a program basing its input on factual data is not strictly also factual.
The key is the source. In the case of climate data though, things like directly measured temperature readings and CO2 concentrations are factual pieces of information.
What editors? Of all the science journals? That's a lot of editors and a lot of leaked emails!
We're talking many hundreds and hundreds of editors. Why is this not news!
Wind is almost at price parity with dirty coal.
First of all, almost at price parity is not the same thing as at parity. Secondly, please provide a link to research that makes that claim and I will probably be able to help you locate misleading data, biased interpretation and outright lies in it. There is a lot of that sort of thing going on as the competition for funding $$$ heats up among both real and fantasy scientists.
All of this thanks to huge R&D investments in Germany, China and USA. The free market comes after.
A little bit of perspective: two-thirds of R&D funding in the USA comes from the private sector, both for-profit and non-profit: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07317 In fact, private money going into scientific research in the USA is pretty close to being greater than the total R&D spending of China and Germany put together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending Five years ago this was definitely true, today more doubtful due to Chinese increase in spending.
Another thing is that private spending would likely be much higher if the government didn't create both free research (hey, why should private businesses pay for it then) and unfair competition, both of which needlessly push private money out and burden the taxpayer instead. This is overall, not specific to solar/wind, so I don't know, possibly you are right when it comes to just those areas.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
No, you can't pull that one.
You cannot pull the "you won;t debate faithfully" argument when you're attempting to put a talk show host and a frequently-proven-wrong scientist up as the counter argument to the bulk of the science community and peer reviewed literature that has been more deeply scrutinised than almost any other research.
It simply will not hold.
There's a difference between talking about the issues in an open and honest forum (and that's what science is all about) and then there's what talk show radio hosts are doing. They are not interested in debating the science, they have made up their minds and will dig under any rock to find something to support them, but that does not mean we have to give them airtime and debate them on their opinions. This sort of thing has been done to death and it goes nowhere.
You posted a link to a talk show host with a biased and poorly conducted interview with a single discredited contrarian scientist and you called the talk show host "one of the wisest men on the planet" and you call *me* the one who's unwilling to talk about the issues.
The climate debate has been settled. It simply isn't controversial. It's only controversial because certain big money interests have paid to make it so because it's going to threaten cheap profits and easy living.
You throw a lot of casual "scientists are all just doing this for funding" allegations, you you seem to think any contrary view (via a scientist or a clearly highly-scientifically-expert talk radio host) is beyond reproach. What about their sources of funding?
If you think this is all a big con to keep grad student funding rolling in then you clearly haven't spent any time in the professional science field. Sorry to pull rank, but the allegation is simply laughable.
I dont like use of the term like that since it seems to connote lack of the possibility measurement error (miscalibration ,data entry error, etc). Assuming the measurements are faithful to reality is another one that is always false to some extent. Also the other person who responded to me seems to have a different definition of "fact", which is evidence that this is a vaguely defined term.
You say that because you look at the statements by actual authorities today, not the predictions by the media 20 years ago. When I was little captain planet told me that lower manhatten would be 4 stories underwater by the year 2000 unless the planeteers did something about it. 10 years ago I was informed by various european media outlets that flooding in germany was caused by american coal plants, and the maledives would be under water within decades. If you think the public hasn't been mislead about global warming you need to read about the boy who cried wolf.
"single discredited contrarian scientist " sources? Man you people are mean-spirited shits. I get modded a troll for 1 simple opinion and get bad karma. You set yourself up as an authority yet can't even bring non-attack based arguments and evidence for your argument. All you do is attack full of spit and venom and vitriol for anyone with a differing view. Show me big guy. You haven't sourced anything resembling a discredit to these people who are authorities on the subject (unlike you I assume but who am I to know? maybe you are getting your funding too). Man I tried to be civil. Well done on baiting me to the point where I blew up. Typical liberal attack dog tactics huh? Why do I even think we can still get along? It's obvious you brainwashed kiddies think anyone who doesn't agree is unworthy. Frak off or address what I posted about credentialed high-ranking scientists who think it's bullshit....
The question is "Can we go to the moon?" and that contains the implicit assumption that we left the moon.
Perhaps English is not your first language, but no, "can we go" does not imply we've been there before. Or maybe you've just never gone someplace you haven't been before?
"Can we return" implies we've been. "Can we go back", the same. But just "can we go", no. Sorry. Nice try.
I see a lot of smoke and mirrors. I read the article and most of it does not make a whole lot of sense. They are trundling out the same old song and dance "we must fund research into 'alternate' energy sources such as solar or wind in order to lower our dependance on foreign oil" (bullet points 3 and 6). They have been parading alternate energy funding about ever since the oil embargos of the 70's. Of course the funding rapidly dries up after the public is distracted by the latest "problem" being pushed by the media.
This is the price today: cost of electricity by source
/without/ pricing the cost of carbon pollution. Today.
And that is
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Don't talk out your has with your mercantilism bullshit. China picked winners too. Their PV production is heavily subsidized. The difference is that they were able to keep pumping money into it until their competitors faltered. Something the US government could not do.
Thank you for bravely sharing your testimony of suffering from antisocial personality disorder. Unfortunately for you, it won't help your cause; you'll just be alienating people from your side of the argument. You're that person AGW deniers don't want to be associated with.
Is there anything that's doesn't change temperature, won't get hot or cold? Put it in a fridge or oven and it just stays the same. Perhaps some exotic particle only found in an expensive science experiment? Maybe not even then. So, there's no reason to think a gas doesn't change temperature. Put enough of it into the atmosphere and now you've created an artificial heat sink in the sky. It will warm up and cool down. As it cools the heat goes away in all directions including back to earth. How to tell if this will be a problem? Get some smart people with big computers to do some experiments.
Republicans just use that same fact to justify more domestic drilling. It's probably better for us to pay other countries to fuck up their own land.
jus thave the nsa spy on everyone and take there idea when it seems best....
Easier answer, move to China... Don't forget the oxygen masks
If the weird unsubstantiated story didn't give it away, the sig does.
Someone has never heard of Sackett v. EPA.
I don't get called a crackpot so much anymore, now that Snowden has outed the NSA and the IRS has admitted to targetting grass roots groups and Russ Tice started telling what he knows.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Oh yeah, Snowden re-revealed shocking facts that were already in a much-cited 12-year-old European parliment report and the media jumped on it because there didn't seem much better to report. So Obama found himself in hot water, so he goes "Look over there! The greatest challenge of our generation!"
Now what's the important point and what's the distraction?
Then why in the fuck are we entrusting a bunch of corrupt politicians to draft and vote on healthcare reform whom know absolutely nothing about the industry, nor why it's jacked up to begin with?! They didn't even read it which makes it all that more insulting!!!
Hint: the government caused the problems to begin with.
BTW, your heroes in office aren't forced to eat this dog food like the rest of us. Two standards: one for them, the other for the rest of us.
Life is not for the lazy.
really ? his "look over there" move is to address climate change ?
really ? something the majority of americans couldn't care less about ?
you are a troll, but I don't have any mod points.
Absolute statements are never true
How about you pay for shit that has already been charged on a Chinese credit card. If you voted for Bush, pay up.
Seriously, This isn't all of the republicans fault. There are plenty of democrats that are involved in "dirty" energy. It also isn't a matter of democrats caving to Republican demands but nice try. This excuse was tried when there was a democratic supermajority.
What is really the problem is how politicians are put into power. There is a reason that they called it the millionaires club. While efforts were made to curtain the phenomena that "if you weren't a millionaire already, you would be by the end of the senate term", the problem has shifted to campaign contributions from UNIONS and CORPORATIONS on both sides of the aisle. Last presidential election even was the most heavily spent. You get money for the campaign and when you are in, you pay the piper. Don't tell me that there aren't lobbyists for every sector of life with a gainful monetary incentive.
You just compared coal emissions to the deliberate slaughter of millions of people. I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.
if it just changes the environment, it's not 'pollution'....
grafting a branch onto a tree "changes" it, but it is vastly different than pouring used motor oil all over the tree...
one is 'change' the other is a *type* of change we have a special word for, for when the "change" is a "change" that harms...pollution
AC trolls...getting modded up is what bugs me most...
Thank you Dave Raggett
No kids that I know of (thankfully). I would have liked them maybe when I was younger, but, I couldn't possibly entertain the idea of the little boat anchors for life now. I enjoy my freedom, and my disposable income that I can spend on, well, ME.
I'm not saying I go out of my way to actively hurt the earth, or anything, but I also don't inconvenience myself for doing anything for it. I've never recycled as that I can't be bothered to take up valuable kitchen floor space for 3-4 different garbage cans nor keep up with that many of them outside to set out on different days for them to pick up, too much of a PITA.
But, I have nothing against people that do.
I'm not bothered by the needs or what happens to 'poor people' in other nations. I'll never meet them, nothing I'll ever do personally will ever really affect them one way or another, and life sucks for some people, I was lucky enough to be born in a nice place. People will have hard lives, suffer and die, and there's nothing I can directly do that will affect that. So, why should I not take 110% full advantage of the hand life has dealt me, and enjoy doing what I want. If I want to buy a 70s muscle car that gets 10mpg...why not? I can afford the gas...and they are fun to drive.
If I were to be overly thoughtful about all this, give all my money to charity and life the live of a pauper, I'd not really make a dent in anything happening in this world, so, why should I bother? Why should I give up if it doesn't make a bit of difference? Seems stupid to give up on what makes my life good if it doesn't make any type of significant difference.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I see democrats are still good at what they do best...calling names.
The timing *does* seem a bit questionable, but unless publishing schedules have changed markedly he must have been planning to make this speech 6 months ago....though I doubt exactly what he was going to say in it was determined until quite recently.
But the magazine article, in, I believe, the Scientific American, speculated that he was going to use this speech to render the KeystoneXL pipeline more acceptable to his supporters. That seems to have held up.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And perhaps also the unintended consequences of things. If this new study is to be believed: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/researchers-lower-pollution-levels-linked-to-more-hurricanes/ then it is entirely possible that the 'new' regulations will have the exact opposite effect. After all - who knew that decreasing aerosol particulates would actually increase the frequency and strength of hurricanes...
So you proved that Obama can play the "look over there!" gave very well.
We already knew that.
So many words. Read them to yourself. What exactly are you trying to tell us? I get it. You think the green movement is bad. You have a lot of words that say bad things but there's no substance. Replace anything for green movement and your post doesn't need to change. Because your post says nothing specific.
It took 4.5 billion years, but Obama is finally going to do something about that uncooperative, ever changing climate! Hopefully Obama's plan will make sure the Earth's climate will stay at exactly 2013 values until the Earth is incinerated by the Sun in 7.5 billion years.
I'll just leave this here for you all to ponder- ... Please read with an open mind. :) Response.
Radio, as a media, is designed to present topics and move onto the next without giving you time to evaluate them. Usually I want to turn it off at that point, until I've finished thinking, but if anyone else is present that's considered impolite. So I've gradually come to blatantly dislike radio. I suppose that it's OK for music, for quiz shows. (I do like to listen to "My Word".) But not to any show that tries to present anything serious.
I will agree that radio used to be much less annoying. 30-40 years ago it was often interesting, but either my thought processes slowed down around 30 years ago, or the pace of radio presentation picked up. (I tend to believe that it was that the pace of radio picked up, since it seems that around the same time there was a lot of effort going into speed reading, and processing verbal speech to "enhance clarity" by removing "dead space" (pauses, comments like "um", etc.). But the result was that I stopped listening to radio for anything but music.. And then I just stopped. I started noticing, when my wife picked up radios with speakers, that radio had become a **LOT** more annoying than it used to be, and that the key element in my annoyance was that it never gave me time to think over what was being said, and decide whether or not I believed it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Thats OK, because many of the Climate Change deniers don't believe in dinosaurs either (Since their bones are older than 4004BC)
I said STUDY iron fertilization, not dump enough iron to make the pacific ocean green (or whatever color phyoplankton is). No one can currently say if iron fertilization will reverse some of the effects of climate change, or if it will be more trouble than it's worth. There will be drawbacks of iron fertilizing, but if they're better than the drawbacks of climate change, then we should do it. But we're evidently not at that point yet. So we must study it, but the studies are not being pursued as much as talks about increasing fuel efficiency in consumer cars.
And iron fertilization isn't mutually exclusive with decreasing emissions either.
Yeah. I can point to unreliable sources claiming everything from global deserts to gobal ice sheets to aliens stealing all our oceans from any decade back through the 1930's. It was probably happening then, too, but I'm just not familiar with the appropriate sources. (But you could read Charles Fort to see what stories the newspapers *were* printing.)
And if you choose an unreliable source, you'll get a faulty prediction. Unfortunately, reliable sources are a bit uncertain about their predictions, and people tend to prefer certainty over reasonableness. I'll grant you that.
N.B.: I can also find claims that dinosaurs walk the earth, that we're going to be invaded from Mars by Martians who look like chambered Nautilus, and many other claims. (I rather miss the "Weekly World News", but the supermarket no longer carries it.)
But I'm not quite sure what your point was:
1) That unreliable sources have been making wild predictions? That's true all the way back to the Sumerians.
2) That people are choosing to believe fraudsters who make confident predictions over people who try to make correct predictions, but are a bit uncertain? That's also been true as far back as is recorded.
3) Something else? Please explain.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
To think we have to live with this tyrant for three more years. . .
-- Jimtown Kelly
Troll moderation?? Really?
Which jackass hasn't figured out that a) any solar thermal or PV project would be most effective in the Southwest and b) with the exception of CA (Blue) and NV / NM (Purple), the entire southwest is a GOP bastion.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Conservative thinking is a product of primitive human thinking. It is reactive and volatile, often driven more by emotion than reason. Those caught in it's thrall are extremely prone to fear based subservience tactics, and ALL politicians play well into that fact.
Please note I did not say conservatives, just the typical thought process that leads to conservative tendencies, which all people have whether you wish to admit it or not.
I don't get a check from the IRS when I screw up my taxes. I don't understand how someone who supposedly supports capitalism is ok with externalities.
Then you dont understand capitalism.
Externalising costs is a cornerstone of capitalism.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Hey everyone!!! Let's all argue about the new energy stuff, so that we all forget about
* The scandal where the IRS used its power to attack the President's opposition
* The scandal where the FBI monitored a reporter and their family for reporting the news
* The scandal where the FBI monitored the Associated Press phone records
* The scandal where the NSA continues to monitor and record all americans' telephone metadata
* The scandal where more than 100 innocent people continue to be held in Guantanamo Bay, even after 10 years
* The scandal where the NSA investigated then-senator Barak Obama
* The scandal where the Attorney General's office oversaw the sale of firearms to Mexican narco-terrorists
* The scandal where the CIA sold weapons to Syrian terrorists (not just rebels, but organizations that the US has classified as "terrorist"
Oh, and did anyone see the latest episode of the Bachelor?
1. Periodic Ice Ages. The last one was 11,000 years ago. The earth is still warming up towards 'normal'. What we have now, is not normal yet. The cavemen must have burned a helluvalot of wood to bring the last ice age to an end...
No one denies periodic ice ages. What is 'normal'? Yes, it's agreed that the Earth's temperature changes at times from natural causes.
2. Layered coal seams. Each seam represents a period of 150 to 200 million years of fern covered swamps. We are now in a cold period, before the next coal seam will be created.
Tectonic plates weren't even in the same place '150 to 200' million years ago.
3. Medieval mini ice age. The earth is still colder than it was during the height of the Roman empire, when people produced wine in England.
Again. No one denies that temperatures change.
4. The earth is mostly covered with water and most of the land is desert. Humans only mess with a small percentage of the earth's surface and in those areas, we mostly replace wild grass with special grass, bisons with cows, boar with pigs, birds with chickens etc. Farming is controlled by the climate and farmers only produce what will grow in that particular area - they don't really change anything, while the surface area covered by cities is very small indeed.
Aside from the very real problem to coastal cities, farming is indeed controlled by the climate it's not good for it to change a lot. It takes a season to grow a crop and changes can lead to poor crop production. At the same time a warmer wetter atmosphere is likely to expand the tropic areas which is arguably where most life is. I think we're likely to wind up with more arable land in the long run. Problems can arise when rain patterns shifts and rain falls where soil is poor. This point is complex. If the climate changes gradually in any direction plants and animals including crops and live stocks move with the climate. If the optimal climate for corn moves in any direction, farms will be more or less successful depending on which area they are in. Year over year a gradual change is hardly noticeable. The concern is a sharp change. If the optimal climate for corn moves significantly in a few years larger crop losses will occur.
5. Radiation is related to the square of the temperature difference. If you heat the atmosphere slightly, heat is radiated faster into space.
Don't forget that water vapor increases as well. Of course you also have to take into effect that clouds will reflect more energy. These things are taken into consideration.
6. What caused those hot swampy periods? Dinosaur farts?
Mainly that the poles didn't have much land around them. No permanent ice shelf means a much lower albedo for the Earth. That's the main reason. More volcanic activity is another cause. Yeah, that's discussed too.
7. Climate change is real, but man has precious little to do with it, if anything.
I can take CO2 in a lab and show it's greenhouse effect. I can also measure CO2 in the atmosphere. I can even take the math that I learned studying CO2 in the lab and apply it to the CO2 I measure in the atmosphere. I can measure how much energy the sun puts out. I can say x amount of CO2 equals y amount of increase in energy held by the atmosphere. I can do this for other gases like sulfur and methane as well. I can measure the sources of those gases whether it's a volcano or a cattle farts.
Because we know all of this we can say that the Earth is warming and that while we are
A metaphorical moment in the White House Rose Garden on a vey hot June day 2013 but the heat is not from the Sun this day.
Las Vegas bets that Obama pissed one pint of blood and shit two pints of blood.
We are getting closer to the moment of truth !
And yet no serious climate researcher has been able to show any actual causal relationship between Sandy or any other storm and global warming. Why do you trot it out?
I wouldn't trust a climatologist to do anything other than waste money writing papers about how much humans suck. When you read stories about "elite" climatologists making statements along the lines of universities shouldn't be giving out degrees related to climate studies to anyone who does not already agree that global warming is happening, is bad and is caused by humans, then you have to realize that nobody is actually doing research; they are only trying to find new ways to rewrite the same lies.
Well, the ice in the Antarctic is taller than it used to be but is less broad. I'm not sure if there is actually more or less because the crowd telling me there is less explains the obviousness of that statement by pointing out that the ice sheets are receding without discussing how they are deeper. The other side acknowledges that they are receding but claims that because they are deeper there is still as much ice down there.
One side also claims that the melting of the glaciers on Greenland is unprecedented but won't explain how the Vikings built those villages underneath all that ice. The other side says that the ice wasn't there when the Vikings built the villages. We have found the villages only recently because of the receding glacier. The first side used to claim that Greenland being named Greenland because of the green pastures used for raising sheep was just a myth.
Its more the wildly exaggerated cost liberals want to attach to those externalities that is the real problem
And if you want to associate a cost with my industrial plant emitting it, then we should also attach the same cost to you emitting it.
Go for it. I'm happy to pay. Are you?
caritj.org
There is no argument needed to make you personally care about other members of our species. If caring about other members of our species benefits the replication of human DNA then caring about other members will be selected for. If not, then it will be selected against. You're right that there's no need to worry about it. It would be interesting to take a snapshot of all DNA now and compare it to 100 years from now. I wonder how much DNA after making it billions of years doesn't make it in the next 100 years or any 100 year sample for that matter.
No, I learned it looking at the papers.
It appears you are confusing your progressive political sources with scientific sources.
There hasn't been a "price collapse". The price of solar panels has steadily come down since the 1980's (and that's a good thing). Subsidies made no difference in the price decrease whatsoever (in fact, they may have contributed to a, fortunately temporary, shortage and price increase).
Wow, you get your understanding of economics straight from Karl Marx? Actually, shareholders would love nothing more than to get prices down and demand up, because that means more money for the company.
And the constitution of the USA showed so much promise. What a shame. Between the Immigration Bill and EPA enforced lies by Executive Order. the USA, I'm afraid, very afraid, is sunk. Which do you think will be the first State to attempt to secede?
While that's a cute meme you're spouting, it's the Democrats and environmentalists who have protested the building of various solar power initiatives in the southwest and managed to stop several:
"Environmental Groups File Formal Protests Over Federal Plan to Expedite Desert Solar Power Projects in 6 Western States" - http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/10908
"BrightSource’s cancelled projects highlight hurdles for desert solar thermal plants" - http://gigaom.com/2013/04/04/brightsources-cancelled-projects-highlight-hurdles-for-desert-solar-thermal-plants/
"$2B Mojave Desert solar plant breaks ground" - http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=7749227
That last one that actually got built was by, you know, a Republican....
Just say'in.....perhaps reflexively categorizing "Republicans bad" and "Democrats good" isn't the best way to view the world...
Ferret
From the High Mountains of Colorado
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
First, I want to point out that you essentially agree with me, given your response.
Your issue is carbon:
Assumption alert! I never said if I think carbon is a pollutant. You set up that straw man and awkwardly tried to make a big huffy point ('stop breathing' essentially...)
So you're a troll for sure.
You can attempt to redeem yourself by defining pollution, since we both agree it exists. Say what IS and IS NOT pollution and why. What is the threshold of 'harm' in your mind?
Give a real answer to that and you can maybe untrollface yourself ;)
Thank you Dave Raggett
You're comparing non-dispatchable and dispatchable energy sources; that doesn't make sense. Even in that comparison, wind is 50% more expensive than natural gas.
Wind will get adopted when it makes economic sense to do so, no sooner. If government wants to speed up the process, it should drop subsidies for all energy sources and reduce regulations.
No, I meant that literally! It's part of any detailed discussion on climate change.
Claiming that an entire global profession are corrupted and paid-for shills (or worse- actively evil (depending on how metaphorical/literal the phrase has been meant)) is somewhere between inflammatory rhetoric and tinfoil-hat conspiracy.
Except when you can see it right out in the open. Hear much on the "hockey stick" theory recently? Or how about the mysterious disappearing MEP? Which was deliberately removed by some in the profession in order to 'even out' the numbers. How about the IPCC report full of errors including using stats based on...nothing, by NGO's? Then we can get into the various NGO's who outright lie in order to drum up funds and fear monger.
Om, nomnomnom...
Then why in the fuck are we entrusting a bunch of corrupt politicians to draft and vote on healthcare reform whom know absolutely nothing about the industry, nor why it's jacked up to begin with?! They didn't even read it which makes it all that more insulting!!!
Wrong thread; this is about the clusterfuck that is climate change regulation, not the clusterfuck that is healthcare reform.
But, to answer your "question" anyway: politicians used to be trusted because their expertise was in writing laws; the actual science behind those laws would be entrusted to expert research by the NSF and the CBO, etc. We're not getting that now because for the past thirty years or so we no longer have professional lawmakers in our legislature; we have professional fundraisers. Nobody in Congress even spends the majority of their time in the legislature anymore; they spend the majority of their time across the street, soliciting donations for their next campaign. They have to; these days, with all the anonymous money flooding the airwaves a campaigner has to spend insane amounts of money to even have a chance of controlling their own campaign messaging, let alone confronting an opponent's.
I wouldn't trust a climatologist to do anything other than waste money writing papers about how much humans suck. When you read stories about "elite" climatologists making statements along the lines of universities shouldn't be giving out degrees related to climate studies to anyone who does not already agree that global warming is happening, is bad and is caused by humans, then you have to realize that nobody is actually doing research; they are only trying to find new ways to rewrite the same lies.
The theory behind the greenhouse effect is nearly two hundred years old at this point, having first been articulated in the 1820s by Joseph Fourier. Proof that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is over 150 years old. That makes the principles behind anthropogenic climate change:
-older than Quantum Mechanics
-older than General and Special Relativity
-older than the theory of the electron
-older than the discovery of the DNA molecule
-older than the theory of evolution
-older, in many ways, than the germ theory of disease.
At this point, considering the enormous weight of theory and proof behind global warming, anyone claiming to be a climatologist who "doesn't believe in global warming" is essentially like an auto mechanic who "doesn't believe in internal combustion", or a doctor who "doesn't believe the brain is necessary for life." If you can't bring yourself to believe in scientific theories that have been proven by millions of people diligently applying the scientific method, then you shouldn't be a scientist. You should be something that does not require the application of the principles of rationality: you can be a priest, or a politician.
Or a radio host.
And yet no serious climate researcher has been able to show any actual causal relationship between Sandy or any other storm and global warming. Why do you trot it out?
But statistically it fits the expected trend. They do agree on that. A storm like Sandy could occur 100 years ago. Nevertheless, researcher agree that stroms in the future will keep on getting stronger on average (increased ocean temp, ...) in that area. In how far they were right will be clear in 50 to 100 years or so. I assume you want to wait and see? It's up to the rulers to plan and prepare.
It depends where those trillion dollars are going.
You already spent trillions for banksters, why not invest one more for energy savings?
I see they have followed the Aussie lead with the term "Carbon Pollution." Too bad the power cost spike in my neighborhood was so bad, people are burning the scrub to heat their homes and nothing says "carbon pollution" to me like having someone a few houses over trying burning wet and green wood. I now have to run an air filter 24x7 just to keep the smog levels in my house down to reasonable levels. I'm now using the electric heater rather than the gas heater because the gas heater requires too much outside polluted air to come into the house. With many of my neighbors doing the same thing, I'm guessing our total carbon foot print is going up and not down.
Yes, I wonder why no one has thought of having a massive, central power source. Oh, because that is stupid.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Warming planet = warmer seas.
Warmer seas = more water.
More water = bigger and more powerful hurricanes.
The causal link is pretty damn clear.
If you're saying that the CO2 isn't making the place warmer than it would have been without it, prove it.
U fail.
predictions by the media 20 years ago
I think I found the source of your problem.
He is a single discredited scientist. If it makes me a "mean spirited shit" (please note, I have not been impolite to you at all), then so be it.
He claimed that volcanos were responsible for more CO2 than human sources, and claimed that submarine volcanos were not accounted for in the models. This has been proven inaccurate by several sources, including the USGS. (He was off by a factor of 130 ish in the wrong direction as I recall).
I'm not "attacking" him - I'm pointing out that his arguments have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
Where is my "spit and venom and vitriol"? Please quote the section where that applies. I seems you with your casual "mean spirited shits" and "show me big guy" comments are the one projecting. I have called him a discredited scientist in the field of climate change (note, I have not attacked his character or his other work), nor have I attacked the character of the radio talk show host (other than making a slight jab at his lack of scientific qualification, yet seeming-expert-level climate science credentials).
Then you claim that I'm "in on the conspiracy" by questioning the validity of my argument based on where my funding comes from. Not that it matters at all, but my funding is not in the area of climate science. I'm not crazy enough to put my foot into that pool for exactly this reason. I don't have the patience to defend my work from a legion of right wing radio talk show hosts who think I'm some sort of evil, lying scum because I say something they disagree wit. I *am* however, an actual professional scientist.
Also, "liberal attack dog tactics". Amusing. I think you're getting the two sides of that particular coin mixed up. If only the liberal media and high profile personalities would have a little bit more bite, it might shut some of that right wing bile up.
Again, I'd be very interested for you to quote any part of my comments where I could be perceived as a "liberal attack dog".
Maybe we should find something that actually makes economic sense before we add another trillion to our national debt.
Hear hear! What I'm most curious about is the pipeline. How exactly are they going to calculate its net effect on carbon emissions? Better yet, why do they think it needs study? Oil from Canada is going to be burned. If it doesn't go through the pipeline, it needs to be shipped via supertanker. So, whatever moves the oil without needing fuel to do so is going to be the most Eco-friendly option. No study needed, just logic. Of course, government has no room for logic.
Since there is at least a 24 hour lag on switching on/off a nuclear power station it is not dispatchable. It's "baseload".
Moreover, DEMAND isn't steady and varies with time.
Solar varies pretty much in synch with demand and Wind varies pretty much in anti-phase.
Therefore your "complaint" is merely a line you've heard and taken to heart. You don't actually know what it means.
I get my power from hydro.
Care to try again?
I see you're a member of the "fuck you, I got mine!" camp...
Don't assume it's just stubborness. The GOP isn't against green energy, they are against spending money we don't have on it, or making our current sources of energy more expensive. In some cases, they would rather forego the short term benefit to their home state due to the long term cost to the rest of the country (yeah, some of them are that decent. Statistically, at least two.)
Whatever happened to the good old "War on " response? Are our US friends somehow slacking? "Plan on Climate Change", hah! I am disappoint ;-)
I wouldn't trust a climatologist to do anything other than waste money writing papers about how much humans suck.
Do you think that climatologists have a guy whose job it is to convince you to trust them? If so, you are delusional.
When you read stories about "elite" climatologists making statements along the lines of universities shouldn't be giving out degrees related to climate studies to anyone who does not already agree that global warming is happening, is bad and is caused by humans,
Well I for one don't think universities should be handing out science degrees to people to stupid too read and understand a graph. Drooling morons and people who live in denial about facts in order to protect an idealogical position don't actually qualify for a degree based on intelligence and the acceptance of objective measures.
Hear much on the "hockey stick" theory recently?
Oddly no. Ever since it was confirmed that the climate behaves precisely as outlined by the fabled hockey stick, denialists whave been remarkably quiet about it
Why is that? You would think that reputation-wise, they would be better off to admit their mistake.
I buy my power by the source. I pay extra for cleaner power. Many states now work that way.
The US consumes about 6.5 billion barrels of oil per year. At current market rates, that's over $500-600 billion / year, or about $10 trillion per decade. Purchasing oil accounts for about one half of the US trade deficit. It seems to me that spending $100 bil/year for a decade, even if it is borrowed money, in order to not spend 10x that amount in perpetuity, is a fine proposition.
Sure, make that argument and go for it.
I invite it. Fish ladders only do so much.
You might have trouble in my area since we don't have salmon, but go for it. Much better than just being a child about it.
You almost missed the point. If healthcare reform sailed on through (as will immigration in the same ram-rodded manner), why would any think this Climate Change plan would be any different in terms of usefulness and effectiveness? As a nation, we should be picking our battles on where to drop us into debt. We can't afford this. The planet will go on long after we're done, be *we* as a nation can NOT afford how financially devastating this will be. This whole administration is one giant "national suicide pact". But what do I know? You guys voted for him, not I. At least I can completely absolve myself from this incompetence.
Life is not for the lazy.
Understood. I was under the impression that a question (a leading one, sure) was being asked. I didn't assume from what I read that there was an assumption that all scientists fell into that category, but rather that a question was being asked about whether the situation was percieved by the answerer as systemic or isolated.
If one holds an opinion on a subject, but has limited evidence, shouldn't they ask questions and learn what people more directly involved think and know? How do you formulate the question to get an answer that either bolsters or disagrees with your premise?
My question to you has to do with the difference between a question and a statement. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, I'm saying that what you're calling a statement seems to be a question to me.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
One of their top executives got to be one of Obama's advisors. Then, as things got competitive in the power plant industry in Texas, they built a plant nearby in Mexico. And wouldn't you know it, federal regulations approved by said advisor forced American power plants out of business but didn't bother the new GE plant(s).
But no, I didn't say that and forget how it sounds. They were really only just trying to help the environment.
I notice that as soon as Edward Snowden leaked that the government is violating the First and Fourth Amendments by illegally collecting data from innocent citizens, suddenly the newspaper headlines were all about the President's plans for the environment. Where are the stories about Congresspeople being arrested?
It's shiny bait for the media.
Coupled with other things going on like the Zimmerman trial it provides a lot of flak to distract.
You forgot $200 for black helicopters, $2000 for aliens, and $20,000 for communist fluoride in the water.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
CSPAN is actually pretty decent; it avoids most of the issues that NPR has (ie, being pretty blatantly biased).
What a perfectly repulsive human being you are.
what we needs and wants is a climate action plan...someday the star in the center of our universe is going to explode...we need to develop environmental controls and controlled climate structures...
t appears you are confusing your progressive political sources with scientific sources.
Dude, I work as a scientists. You're are lying through your teeth.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I got my information from losing quite a bit of money by going long in solar, and looking up analysts' opinions on why this happened. Guess that makes you wrong on all accounts.
Duh. I don't mind being "look over there'd" from a stale story that has been going on since the 1960s and resurfaces every decade or so to long overdue meaningful action against a threat against world civilization.
Yes, in an ideal world, Obama would use the opportunity of the NSA scandal to curtail these practices that have been going on since the 1960s, I give you that. But the US is the US and the world is not ideal. We'll probably need to wait till after the next civil war or revolution to get a president who'd really curtail his government's excessive use of information gathering instruments.
Even from a quick glance at the summary at Wikipedia, one can see things were just a little bit more complicated than it not being "legal to move dirt from one part of your yard to another". Owning a piece of land does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. And in unfortunate exceptional cases, it does mean you cannot do something seemingly innocuous. That's life. Doesn't mean nobody can move dirt from one part of their yard to another, as you imply.
Welcome to Slashdot, Henrik Schoen!
After watching some of the exchanges in Congress, I'm afraid that the "that decent" ones are very, very, very much in the minority or have no real clout.
Anything that could theoretically make Obama look good is to be denied, delayed or destroyed unless huge concessions can be won.
This is the party that where members routinely vote against bills they themselves introduce.
I would love to see a return to sanity among the GOP but I'm not sure I'll live that long.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Even from a quick glance at the summary at Wikipedia, one can see things were just a little bit more complicated than it not being "legal to move dirt from one part of your yard to another". Owning a piece of land does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. And in unfortunate exceptional cases, it does mean you cannot do something seemingly innocuous. That's life. Doesn't mean nobody can move dirt from one part of their yard to another, as you imply.
In a way, it does. Because it means that anybody can be told that they can't use their land for anything, and those decisions are either arbitrary or driven by favoritism, politically connected individuals with personal agendas, and power-hungry tin-pot dictators. The case of Greg Garrett's oyster farm is similar instructive example. The problem with all these types of policies is that there is no way of knowing what is "allowed" - advance permission is often required and costly, and there is no rule of law that says what is allowed or not, it's always discretionary and there is often someone influential with the bureaucrats in charge. At that point most individual have no recourse, because fighting a government bureaucracy is very costly. The Sacketts were able to go to the SCOTUS, and now York County (driven by the head of a PAC that did get approval for his competing oyster farm) has now decided to use the taxpayer's money (including Garrett's own) to send lawyers to the Virginia supreme court to get the outcome they want.
Reminiscent of the Heller decision that allowed local governments to take property from one own and hand it to another private owner just because they can get more revenue. And of course in that case, the "new" owner ended up abandoning the property anyway.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I don't reflexively categorize "Democrats good" I reflexively categorize "Democrats bad", "Republicans fucking insane traitors"
No, I learned it looking at the papers.
Which papers? Ones published in respectable peer reviewed journals. (Not heartland institute "papers".) Where is the great controversy?
It is one thing to have partisan blinkers. It is another thing to just make stuff up whole cloth.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You're comparing non-dispatchable and dispatchable energy sources; that doesn't make sense. Even in that comparison, wind is 50% more expensive than natural gas.
According to the CBO, wind is 29% more expensive than the CHEAPEST gas, and wind is already cheaper than the CHEAPEST coal. That's with capacity factor 34%. Of course, the CBO is a well-known source of liberal propaganda and lies.
If government wants to speed up the process, it should drop subsidies for all energy sources and reduce regulations.
Or it could just do what Germany did, and use feed-in tariffs. But that would be ideologically wrong for the flat-earth crowd.
You look like an educated person, but you know jack shit.
The urge to discover a primary interaction placing the president at the center of anti American logorrhea , the president as an avatar replete with followers who adopt the nomenclature of theological hierarchies , deacons , acolytes , clerics , the messiah etc, etc, was so adorable five years ago . Along with the durable , True Scotsman , the emotional distortion brought about by our current president is either frightening , in the application of poorly disguised hate that manifests itself within a terrariums broad variation , in the frequently , to ad infinitum , repudiated verbatim memes , or just garden variety disgusting self indulgence . It has passed from a besotted love of conspiracy into the region of shock and brutality by weight of liturgical regurgitation , inference by the pound has become a wholesale by the ton .
The passion to represent the , "No Drama Obama" as some sort of febrile clutching desperado through the professional efforts of a congressman for whom the reality of the double standard is manifested in his love of arson and grand theft auto , while smugly pursuing cockamamy pipe dreams to the neglect of those who consent to the rule of government looking for collaboration with officials thinking with the big head , not this tone deaf , heartless party before country crowd . Officials who put two wars on the national credit card after dissolving the biggest surplus in living memory for political power .
These woodpeckering metronomes beating their heads against the unfortunate , for them , facts which despite being readily evident , our southern Californian solon wishes to hold secret committee hearings to ratchet up an angst amongst more of the public than those of the same reliable forces behind the lowest public acceptability of Congress ever measured before , during , and after .
Bengazi Bengazi Bengazi . The fact that every stripe of political group which requested tax free political diarrhea , including Tea Baggers , Progressives , etc , were tagged for inquiry . Never let the facts get on the way of the pure honest love found pounding the table with tall tales repudiated enough to teeter towards libel , or a thinly disguised hate . A cabal so preoccupied with the exercise of party power to the neglect of policy for the Nation they were elected to govern , feels just like cozying up with treason , palling around with the stupidity of walking then running into the same wall of repudiation .
The maligning of a political actor with the sneering cohorts who backed by the largest losing bets ever placed by billionaire fly by night political hit squads is just another venture in the endless cycling of gossipy conspiratorial nonsense that would make a Hearst journalist from the Spanish American war yellow journalism school of fraud lies and innuendo blush .
Peace .
Anybody can get struck by a meteor when walking down the street. Or impaled by a bull statue while playing in the park. Shit happens, but that doesn't necessarily make it a general rule.
Anyhow, we're digressing quite far from the subject of Obama's climate change plan, which you fear will be used by local tin-pot dictators to arbitrarily target people they don't like. My opinion there is that power-hungry tin-pot dictators gonna be power-hungry tin-pot dictators and will find a way to abuse the law to play their tin-pot dictator games no matter what the law is. It seems that the problem you're complaining about is more a consequence of the existence of these petty local dictators than of any particular law.
- If yes, then I'm with you: this country needs a good harsh crackdown on corruption and favoritism, from the highest to the lowest level.
- If no, then please show how there's "no way of knowing what is 'allowed'" under Obama's plan.
I buy my power by the source.
That is not an investment, it is buying power at an extra cost. You didn't send the power company ten dollars and say "invest this in hydro", they came to you and said "you can pay us extra for power that costs us less to produce". You got hoodwinked. Not to mention that once those electrons hit the wire, they mix in with all the other electrons, so you're actually using power from all the sources, dirty and clean(er), just paying extra for the privilege of bragging about it here.
Many states now work that way.
States should not be in the power business, they should be in the government business.
Anybody can get struck by a meteor when walking down the street. Or impaled by a bull statue while playing in the park. Shit happens, but that doesn't necessarily make it a general rule.
Way to completely miss the point. Have a rule of law means that "anybody" can't be targeted randomly and made to suffer at the hands of an unresponsive faceless bureaucracy when they are doing nothing wrong. The current state of things is such that everyone is doing something illegal in some way much of the time, and it's just a matter of picking the right rule at the right time.
Anyhow, we're digressing quite far from the subject of Obama's climate change plan, which you fear will be used by local tin-pot dictators to arbitrarily target people they don't like.
Quite wrong. Sackett was about massive overreach of the EPA, something that also enabled York county to overreach due to funding grants from the EPA to set up the type of system easily exploited by tin pot dictators. Obama's climate change plan will simply make this much worse, and you won't hear about all the abuses of people that roll over and capitulate because they can't afford a long court battle against an entity with limitless funding.
My opinion there is that power-hungry tin-pot dictators gonna be power-hungry tin-pot dictators and will find a way to abuse the law to play their tin-pot dictator games no matter what the law is. It seems that the problem you're complaining about is more a consequence of the existence of these petty local dictators than of any particular law.
Again, quite wrong. It's the laws (and interpreted policies from law - remember how far the clean water act of 1972 was stretched to victimize the Sacketts) that enable these kinds of abuses. Without that, the people targeted by those dictators would have better ways to redress the issues and, more importantly, have the law on their side, instead of having to battle over rules that allow "discretionary" enforcement.
- If yes, then I'm with you: this country needs a good harsh crackdown on corruption and favoritism, from the highest to the lowest level.
Yes, we do. But when the law is enabling it, how do you fight it. As an exercise, please list one example of any level of bureaucrat or corrupted official that has been held accountable. Not just had their decision reversed, but actually suffered some kind of penalty for their actions.
- If no, then please show how there's "no way of knowing what is 'allowed'" under Obama's plan.
When we have something other than rhetoric (for example, the first Federal Register that lists the policy decisions the EPA has actually written), then I will be glad to do so.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
There was a lengthy discussion here when the "97% claim" was published. Go look it up there.
You do both.
once those electrons hit the wire, they mix in with all the other electrons, so you're actually using power from all the sources, dirty and clean(er), just paying extra for the privilege of bragging about it here.
not quite -- while the electrons are mixed together you get to choose who gets your money.
Carbon pollution or CO2 or CH4 emissions....
Greenhouse gasses, global albedo or regional albedo changes.
On quick review he has yet to establish a credible climate and weather research foundation to make these assertions and worse he is making regulations based on incomplete science.
It is important to not minimize this issue but it is also important to understand the issue.
The most obvious conflict is that we have agencies that have kittens when a portion of the ocean goes negative on the oxygen balance and the sea floor sees piles of organic (carbon rich) material building up. If we want CO2 to be removed and sequestered these kitten lovers are getting in the way of this natural process. Another carbon neutral heat source can be hemp or wood yet wood burning stoves are being eliminated one by one and not being replaced by equally neutral fuel.
Insulation.... insulation is perhaps the single best strategy to improve dependency on foreign fuel. New and existing home insulation programs are not getting the attention they deserve.
The news media and legislative regulation camps need to be better educated.... Right now we have a gaggle of near fools, clearly self serving, clearly agenda pushing, clearly unable to balance a family budget.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Again, quite wrong. It's the laws (and interpreted policies from law - remember how far the clean water act of 1972 was stretched to victimize the Sacketts) that enable these kinds of abuses. Without that, the people targeted by those dictators would have better ways to redress the issues and, more importantly, have the law on their side, instead of having to battle over rules that allow "discretionary" enforcement.
Surely you can't be that naive. These stupid tricks are as old as humanity. Whenever there's a possibility for enforcers to selectively turn a blind eye, you'll have discretionary enforcement. It's very difficult to 100% proof laws against that. Though I give you the US could do a better job at it. Dropping laws into place without transitional measures so that a majority of the population is suddenly placed outside the law, or more generally laws that are impossible to enforce consistently, that's just asking for it - not to mention completely hypocrite.
Obama's climate change plan will simply make this much worse, and you won't hear about all the abuses of people that roll over and capitulate because they can't afford a long court battle against an entity with limitless funding.
Speculation, speculation, speculation.
- If yes, then I'm with you: this country needs a good harsh crackdown on corruption and favoritism, from the highest to the lowest level.
Yes, we do. But when the law is enabling it, how do you fight it. As an exercise, please list one example of any level of bureaucrat or corrupted official that has been held accountable. Not just had their decision reversed, but actually suffered some kind of penalty for their actions.
Oh but I couldn't agree more on that point, the crackdown I had in mind would be preceded with tough legislation that can be enforced with jail sentences. According to some statistics, the US has enviably low levels of corruption, but that's only because a lot of shit is legally allowed in the US yet would be considered corruption in other countries. Citizens United, super PACs,... how can you ever expect public office holders to be honest and rule in the best interest of the people if the system encourages said public office holders to start their tenure with a multi-million dollar debt to all kinds of industries and special interests?
Nope. I believe that the Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents of my country and that I do have the right to exist without the very fact of my existing being a reason to tax me.
On the other hand, you seem to believe that you are constantly contributing to the downfall of the world but seem to have no interest in stopping those contributions. That would make you a hypocrite. Simply begging for the privilege of paying for the right to pollute also seems very hypocritical to me.
While your argument is great, you have to remember that the GP may not actually care about regulation closing businesses. When was the last time you saw conservative outrage over the jobs lost due to government regulation of abortion clinics? Marijuana dispensaries? Adult toy stores? Strip clubs?
I think it's safe to say that most conservatives have no problem with big government regulating businesses out of existence. They just like pollution.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Why not?
I see no mention of any science degrees,
Huh, wasn't aware that "science degree holder" was a requirement for holding a valid opinion.
Well, in that case I'm guessing you won't have any quibbles about the validity of the opinion I have formed of the validity of your opinions, based on that particular gem.
Not saying you are right or wrong but it seems suspicious when every argument is refuted with a URL from just one domain (grist.org). Usually, when refuting numerous arguments, one cites more than one source.
Oddly, the site will not even load for me so I have no idea if this one site cites numerous sources or just meanders on without citing anything. *sigh* My sight is cloudy. (can we get a different word here please?)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
"Only needs 5 million to prove it [works]"
Why don't they Kickstarter a nuclear reactor?
gosgog:
Not a member of the "FLAT EARTH SOCIETY", then you'll know that Climate Change is here to stay, and its a natural function altho' in this last century, we have considerably contributed to it. INSURANCE....(MAFIA based industry right.?..pay us every month or we'll see that what ever you own is destroyable & irreplaceable!). And for years there was always an unclaimable clause "Act of God"...ha! Ha!...well there is no GOD, or if there is I'm sure the Pope thinks he/her a nice guy! But then the insurance folks said "hey we're missing a bet!", dump the clause, we can insure all those idiots who build big Fancy houses, on the Ocean side of the road (Galveston to Freeport, Texas)
and if they're wiped out by the nearest Hurricane, so what! WE JUST 'JACKUP THE RATES', and all those other suckers INLAND rates go up to cover it! Aaah Money, Money! makes the world go round.
Ignorance is no excuse Check the science, there has been NO WARMING in more than a decade. And climate is always changing, that's what it does. For billions of years. And only 30years ago the big SciFiction was Global Winter. Check the economics. The billions we spend won't cover a fraction of what THEY (the rest of the world) do to contribute carbon. But will make us all poorer. And Gov't and certain corporations much richer. Check nature. It has always thrived in the eras of high Co/Co2. And climate change has always been what it does. Check the motives of the pols who push the agenda Obama wants so bad. They get power & wealth, their friends and sponsors do too. But you don't. You just get poorer, and more controlled by rules & rulers (the bureaucrats. Check yourself. You gullible, or just like the new gov't handouts?
Alcaide's Cafe,
Isn't the Sun essentially a massive central power source?