Slashdot Mirror
Let's Call It 'Climate Disruption,' White House Science Adviser Suggests (Again)
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "First there was 'global warming.' Then many researchers suggested 'climate change' was a better term. Now, White House science adviser John Holdren is renewing his call for a new nomenclature to describe the end result of dumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into Earth's atmosphere: 'global climate disruption.'"
Just shut the fuck up already.
We all know it's a scam. We all know you and your ilk stand to profit from it. We all know you have No Clue what's going on.
Because everyone associates "global warming" change with Al Gore.
hard to believe http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=weather+manipulation+wmd never ending holycost http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561
Pollution.
The simple goal should be to spew as little as possible, regardless of the potential issues.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Inconvenient Climate Change
(This is the graph that has been all shaft and no blade for the last 12 years or so.) Didn't the "overwhelming scientific consensus" believe in that not too long ago?
Another name change? What are we at now, lets see. First it was global warming, then climate change and now global climate disruption? Did I miss any? Sound like the equivalent of three card monte.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Since the solution promoted by politicians is to raise taxes and raise costs of energy, I suggest that we levy a tax on every word spoken by politicians. They spew so much hot air that it easily competes with the effects of all the CO2.
Global warming was always a terrible name because the imagery was all wrong.
Global climate change is more accurate, but still nebulous.
Climate disruption evokes a more accurate picture of what seems to be happening. I personally liked the name "Santa's revenge" from this winter's breakdown of the polar vortex. Melt the north pole, and you'll all get a taste of the cold!
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
I'm fine with calling it any of those things. But it would be better to settle on globally unified measures to do something about it like we did with the hole in the Ozone Layer (remember that?), or else we may eventually have to call it a fourth option: Global Suicide.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Climate Dipshittery?
Climate Asshattery?
He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Just announced: Keanu Reeves and Ashton Kutcher in the upcoming movie: Dude what's up with the weather and have you seen my car?
We're screwing up the environment on multiple levels and you're not going to stop human activity which is the root cause for all our ills. You'll never have the scientists or the political leaders agree on a solution so it's simple: Destroy all Humans!
That seems like an easy enough problem to fix.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
yup, they did but with scientists they have this disclaimer thingy. It's kind of like Sarah Palin and common sense: " I can see scientific proof from my house! "
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"Climate Terrorism"
Climate disruption evokes a more accurate picture of what seems to be happening.
Disruption sounds temporary, change sounds more permanent. Change seems a far better word to use.
Why not just call it an unrequested global energy surplus?
Language like this makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill...
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
10. "Global climate engineering"
9. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide deficit reduction"
8. "Carbon gifting"
7. "Meteorological redistricting"
6. "No Cloud Left Behind"
5. "The Hurricane Insurance Investment Initiative of 2024"
4. "The Global War on Terra"
3. "Operation Desert Planet"
2. "Great Flood II: Our Glorious Return to Biblical Times"
And the number 1 future euphemism for Global Warming is...
1. "Occupy Everest"
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Call it double plus ungood weather.
David 'Volk' Mc. Itazura!
with scientists they have this disclaimer thingy
It's called admitting new evidence even if it contradicts previous "settled" conclusions. I know you bible-thumper types seem to view that as a bad thing, that you must instead bull-headedly stick to your original notion no matter what new evidence surfaces against it, but it really isn't.
Just something to poo poo and pat each other on the back over I stead of actually doing something real.
Silence is a state of mime.
Climate change and global warming are a bit too vague, but climate disruption sounds like a great way to place blame on chosen targets.
These targets could also have other jingoistic labels attached to them, but the international blame game is what this term is being coined for.
He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.
Well, it is.
As much as we would all really love solar and wind to scale to a level necessary for global needs that is not going to happen with current technology. Its many decades off. Lots of science and engineering are needed to get solar there. We need something to bridge the gap between today and that future date where solar scales.
If not nuclear then its natural gas, oil and coal.
Even environmentalists are starting to realize this, including a co-founder of GreenPeace.
"Moore says that his views have changed since founding Greenpeace, and he now believes that using nuclear energy can help counteract catastrophic climate change from burning fossil fuels. Says Moore, "The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles." Moore also cites reports from the Clean Air Council that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. "Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually," says Moore. "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely." Moore points out that the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. He predicts that advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future. According to Moore, British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, also believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Concerns about past accidents in the nuclear industry were also mentioned, as he claims the Chernobyl nuclear disaster as example, calling it "an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up". He also recognized the difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste."
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Gr...
Regarding nuclear waste from current reactors. 4th generation reactors can use this waste as fuel. And the waste from 4th gen is short lived. Hundred of years rather than tens of thousands.
http://www.ga.com/energy-multi...
NASA also thinks nuclear has greatly improved the environment.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.
Well, France demonstrates he is correct. They get 75% of their electricity from nuclear and have very inexpensive electricity.
"France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
...was a fine name in the rest of the world, but Americans don't understand the meaning of 'global'.
It's still just a scam.
Nothing is permanent. They earth's climate has 'changed' drastically over several billion years.
And disruption really is more accurate.
And this is a beautiful example of why most scientists should not talk to the public. While your point is factually correct it does *not* communicate to the public what it communicates to the scientifically literate. The public does not think of change in geologic terms, they think of it in personal human experience terms. To the public disruptions are temporary, electricity was disrupted by the storm, etc.
Scientists like Sagan and Tyson do such a great job explaining science to the public because they learned to explain things to the public in the public's language, using the public's understanding and connotations. "Change" works in this sense, "disruption" fails.
Nice switch, but nobody said that. You're just trying to drag debunked climate myth #16 into the discussion.
All those terms means different things
Global warming means the observable increase in the average global temperature, that has been is objectively measured and there is no opinion or local weather that can deny it. Is in the orders of a few tenths of degrees each year, but it has been increasing.
The explanation of why it is happening goes around the increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and it was linked to use of fuel, industrial pollution, deforestation and so on. As is linked to human activities it is called also Anthropogenic Global Warming. That increase impacts more than just the global climate system, ocean acidification and its influence in one of the most crucial ecosystems of the planet matters a lot too. It targets the cause, but as it is a complex system involving sun, earth orbit and tilt, volcanic activities, and a lot more, is always the main target of denialists.
Climate change goes around the changes that causes that extra global temperature to the climate systems. Our civilization depends on a more or less stable and predictable climate system, as extensive agriculture is very sensible to extreme or unexpected weather.
Climate disruption seem to be another layer of dilution of the visibility of the core problem, focused only in extreme weather events. It targets the most visible consequences for our narrow vision of events in time, we can see a big storm but not a gradual over the years events, like slow desertification of big areas or reduction of some core component of the ocean food chain. And if that average temperature keeps increasing, we will have a lot more to worry about than just about weather.
Ah, so the conversation has degenerated to the "controversy" over whether burning fossil fuels could be altering the earth's climate. Look, Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes that if we just keep shoving the stuff in the atmosphere forever, eventually things will warm up. The only question is whether or not we are putting enough up there right now to have this effect. So lets do some simple math: 1 gallon of gasoline requires about 100 tons of biomass. 1 barrel of oil makes 20 gallons of gasoline. The world uses 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day. Doing the simple math, we use the equivalent of 170,000,000,000 tons of biomass per day. The earth's current biomass is estimated at 560,000,000,000 tons. So we burn the equivalent of 1/3 of all the earth's current biomass every single day. I find this pretty compelling.... And don't forget the methane, which we're also pumping up there (both directly by co-release with oil drilling and fracking, and as a side-effect of arctic climate change), and which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.
I'm thinking Sharknado. It's about as likely as the others.
Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
Funny with how bad Sarah Palin is the only thing morons like you seem to be able to attribute to her is what Tina Fey said. I'll even bet you didn't realize the quote you used was never said by Palin.
I guess the left really is the dumbest of the dumb, but we had better believe them on AGW or they might misquote other people to make us look bad.
Let's call it ... dung. You know, shit has such a negative overtone. Dung, that's the powerful stuff that promotes growth! Sounds much better! And while we're at it, could we paint that turd white maybe? Our marketing department found out that people don't like the color brown, they associate it with, well, shit. White is much superior. First we thought green, but our prototyping department found out that makes the shit, pardon, dung only look like it's infected or something. White shit is much more friendly.
Yes, that's better. It looks so much nicer now, and it's so much better talking about it, our powerful growth-promoter!
Hmm... gee, what's that smell...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The term "climate change" was used long before "global warming".
Know whats great? Facts. Sarah Palin never said she should see Russia from her house. http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp But hey, the left never seems to care about facts as long as they can raise taxes and gain power
Let's just do a mix of stupid name discussions that help distract the public attention from the base subject: global marriage and gay warming.
to rename our efforts to create a world wide carbon exchange to tax nations and deindustrialize them to bring them under rule.
Not going to work, because the cat is out of the bag. The sicence behind Global Warming is so fake, it is like watching two drunk people doing Cherades at your company Christmas party.
We are suppose to be stewards of the Earth. If we REALLY wanted to clean up the environment we would agressive upgrade our energy production facilities like we do with our PC's.
Thorium Nuclear power would be a good place to start.
Chemical Fusion/Low Energy Fusion would be another nice place to start.
We have tons of energy solutions for personal cars/transport and mass transit. We are refusing to do these things because it disrupts the power structures, all of them political.
There world seems to be stuck in a rule by Oligarchs, who are hell bent on bringing another round of fascism to the table.
So we do not get change on any of the issues of energy and environment because they would lose their power structures if we did.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
"Climate change" was not a very descriptive name, because the climate is always changing. It's just changing faster now, in a way that will arguably be harder for humans and nature to adapt to. So "climate disruption" is a better name.
And I don't understand why this new terminology should be politically controversial. It's pretty clear that the climate is now changing in novel ways, due to human influence. But it's not actually clear, according to the experts, whether the net impact of "climate disruption" on humanity will be positive or negative, and therefore whether we should make an effort to slow it...
You know there is a problem when they feel a need to keep changing the tile of the tune. Obviously, the tune (song) is not selling.Rebrand, repackage,resell. So typical.
it's getting warmer everywhere except where *I* live. I think that's all that they are trying to say: "look man: winters will get more milder and easier to live with except for whereever it is that scarboni888 lives whereupon they will get colder and more miserable. That is all that's happening to the climate".
The only loss is the general American public being too stupid and too lazy to read the scientific research
That and every article is two paragraphs long, with the second being "Subscribe to this journal to read this article's full text".
We just settle on an already-given term, then trying to come up with a new alarmist term every few months/years?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I have a 3 step plan that would deal with past, present, and future climate issue of CO2:
1.Past: 'harvest' the carbon out of the air, convert into diamonds or other tangible materials. Ground storage would only temporarily work, and CO2 geysers don't sound like a good idea to me
2.Present: Nuclear technology, but rather than building a few large nuclear power stations, build multiple smaller-scale stations. Nuclear reactors don't scale up very well. Also, REFORGE and recycle your fuel rods, even if it means building a facility to specifically do so. Certain reactor by-products have industrial uses, such as americium (smoke detectors.) Use RTG generators for small towns or factories, and most importantly EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR.
3.Future: Fusion, more efficient solar panels, Orbital Solar Farms that return the energy via microwaves....any number of improvements to present technology can tip the scales.
none of this is supposed to be an instant fix, it is an ongoing issue.
So there are two broad categories of people that will read this post:
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that this is a cultural phenomenon, perpetuated by left-leaning media and left-leaning scientists that has effectively "branded" the idea of "global warming", "global climate change", "etc" and that it is, essentially, a ploy by profiteers and politicians to stage a "moral high-ground" stance on the matter to further their agenda which, generally, has to do with increased regulations and economic sanctions. People who share some semblance of this agenda cite ongoing scientific research by numerous organizations as claim to proof that their view is accurate and that their agenda is justified. Half of us BELIEVE that the scientific research cited, in these cases, is at best a highly biased perspective and at worst has been fabricated to comply with the image and branding necessary to support said agenda.
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that humanity has somehow reached a level of unmitigated industrialization that is causing "greenhouse gas" emissions to increase, unchecked. Half of us BELIEVE that these emissions CAUSED BY HUMANS are changing atmospheric composition in ways that are, and will continue to, alter the climate of the planet. Half of us BELIEVE that these changes in the climate will have repercussions on things like water supply (rainfall/drought), agriculture, animal habitat dynamics, etc, and that while these repercussions are difficult to predict accurately, they are expected to be generally detrimental in nature. Half of us BELIEVE that these detrimental repercussions are happening now and will continue to compound/increase with further unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions that we, humans, are directly responsible for.
Broadly speaking: Nearly none of us will actually go find out the facts for ourselves. Half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear and we trust the information to be accurate, we trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science in the same way we trust the people who designed the airbus A380 enough to board one and let it take us to Japan.
The other half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because we do not trust the information to be accurate, we do not trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science.
There are individuals among us who fall somewhere in between:
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate but that it is NOT caused by humans.
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate which can be directly attributed to human activities, BUT that nothing should be done because it would jeopardize the economy, national security, etc...
Time will ultimately tell:
Of these two major and several minor perspectives on the matter - a consensus has been reached through disagreement, in a manner of speaking:
Those who BELIEVE in the science generally believe that the changes will become ever increasingly apparent within the next 50-100 years - That there is a consensual hypothesis that has been made and is in the process of continuous refinement by the global scientific community. This hypothesis will be proven true or false as time passes and as conditions change, for better or worse...With time, if conditions change for better, diverging from these hypothetical projections, it will be taken less seriously. If conditions change for the worse, converging on these hypothetical projections, it will gain more attention and be taken more seriously by people at large.
Those who BELIEVE only in the political agendas, chocking it up to alarmism and theatrics generally believe that either nothing is changing, or that the climate is changing but that there is nothing we can do about it because we aren't the cause of it or
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
It wasn't global warming first. That wasn't until the 90's. It was global cooling. But we'd like to ignore that fact, as it introduces a whole lot of doubt and makes it harder to buy into the premise at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Implicit Evaluation with PHP
No matter what you call it the physical changes to the Earth's climate can't be denied. This is like throwing a bone to the contrarians so they can claim we changed the name again.
I like it. Instead of comprising merely one or another of the words that now give conservatives a cold sweat, it has both. Pity they couldn't find a way to throw in "evolution", "vaccines" and "free-thinking".
You need to gain some perspective. In the 1000 year span of the Hockey Stick graph the past 12 or 16 years is like a nick in the blade of a hockey stick.
Maybe she didn't say that, but she did say many things that demonstrated her failure to grasp complicated issues like climate change/disruption/warming. Or perhaps she did grasp it, but thought the voters didn't like politicians that seemed smart. Remember George Bush?
1. More natural gas
2. More oil from canadian sands
3. More deep sea drilling
4. More shallow see drilling
5. More nuclear power in whatever way provides the most power and least recycling
6. No solar power ever
This is the correct way of doing things.
Yeah, George Bush was SIX YEARS AGO. Now we have Presidents that let ambassadors get killed and blame it on amateur film makers.
What's really cool is that we're consuming all of the carbon assets, armed ourselves to the teeth with conventional and nuclear weapons and we've progressed to point where we settle our differences by throwing rocks at one another. I hope our alien overlords take pity on us and snuff us in a quick and painless manner. But they'll probably want to make an example of us - ruin your home planet at your peril.
If they're supporting nuclear then they aren't environmentalists. Yes, the plants have a different design and they don't have the same level of risk. But they still have a certain lifetime and then you don't know what the fuck to do with the tons of contaminated metal and concrete. The real elephant in the room is conservation, but addicts don't want to give up their fix.
The weather is the refrigeration cycle of the Earth. And it will always try to balance itself regardless. The Sun's heat (or lack of) drives it. The water is the refrigerant, both as a liquid and as a vapor. Without water our planet would be 200 degrees f. at the equator and 200 below.zero at the poles. Through the atmosphere that is as thin as a peeling of a tangerine (for example) it tries to equalize temp differences. No mater how much heat you and I ad to the system, it will try to balance out. The jet streams ad some resistance to the equalization and the result is stronger barometric pressures. That equals more extreme weather period. So get used to it and prepare for more violent storms etc. Just like in refrigeration as we understand that; A balance point will be sought. Can anything be done? Yes but few are willing...and the rest are living in Egypt (a state of de Nile) Solar, Wind turbines, combined with electric high speed trains would be a good start. (jobs anyone?) Or invest in Oil / Coal and be like Dick Cheney "all we have to do is provide a sense of doubt" (1999) Let's not wait too long.
Or what about starting with simple things like using solar heat collectors to heat water in Arizona and California instead of burning gas. Or drying your laundry outside in the desert instead of using the dryer. Or maybe installing solar panels to help power air conditioning.
Pollution.
The simple goal should be to spew as little as possible, regardless of the potential issues.
Survival is the simple goal for most people. After that rational people seek comfort, security, longevity and prosperity for themselves and their families.
On the other hand, some religious sects value various forms of purity ahead of comfort, security, longevity, and prosperity. Wanting "as little as possible" pollution is more-or-less a religious attitude.
A less environmentally religious person might ask: "In what way does this pollution affect my (and my family's, and my neighbors') survival, comfort, security, longevity, and prosperity? What are the tradeoffs? How do I know for sure?"
The whitehouse, and every other partisan group (congress, etc...) needs to shut up about it so we can separate this vary serious issue from politics. Let the scientists name it, and let the whitehouse stay the hell out of the debate unless absolutely necessary. The republicans can call it "Why fishing sucked this year" or "Why your corn futures lost money" and get their people behind addressing it as well. Obama comes forward and even mentions it... viola, 45% of the country opposes any action what-so-ever.
It was Sillary Clinton who blamed the amateur film makers whereas the Big Zero came out with Corpseman and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. He makes Diamond Joe Quimby look competent!
I'm one of the weirdos. I believe the science; it's incontrovertible. But I also acknowledge that the environmental movement, about 50 years ago, was a political movement.
Even today, it's easy to brand as advocating a drab, sackcloth-and-ashes, punish yourselves for your own good, existence. All the good stuff about consumerism, and remember, I'm talking branding here, not reality - red meat, fast cars, big houses - associated with a "high standard of living" are treated with disdain or suspicion. We see it today in the stereotype of an organic-food-only, no-GMO-allowed vegan driving a dowdy-looking Prius at 55 mph in the left lane on his way home to a sustainable one-bedroom apartment, and that's how he lowers his carbon footprint. "Commie bastard wants us all to live like this!" shriek the GOP diehards who are still fighting the cold war, and that's the end of the message. (We'll ignore the fact that these same GOP diehards people prefer that Putin win in Ukraine, but that's another thread.)
Why can't the environmental movement rebrand itself as the movement that promises a future of being able to fly down the highway at 90 miles an hour in sporty-looking Tesla, chowing down on a medium-rare lab-grown-beef burger, before pulling into a giant home in suburbia that's encrusted in glittering solar panels? There's never a drop of oil staining his immaculate driveway, and the electric company pays him. He may even have a smaller carbon footprint than apartment-dwelling Prius guy, but his standard of living is increased immeasurably.
Americans like to consume. Conspicuously. The reality of climate change is that it's going to impact our ability to consume, but that by changing our energy sources, we can greatly increase our capacity to consume. A successful branding strategy needs to point out that reducing one's carbon footprint is a way to increase one's standard of living, not detract from it.
Now we have Presidents that let ambassadors get killed and blame it on amateur film makers.
If that's the worst thing the Republicans can dig up on Obama, then he's doing a great job. Compared to the 2,977 civilians dead in 9/11, and the 4,486 more Americans who died during the Great WMD Snipe Hunt in Iraq, the four Americans killed in Benghazi is rounding error.
The Republican obsession with Benghazi says more about the Republican Party that it does about Obama -- a party with a viable policy platform would campaign on that platform, rather than obsessively try to manufacture scandals to score political points. The Clinton/Lewinski scandal worked out so well for them that it's made them lazy.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
How about calling it climate terrorism? Of course it will start some finger pointing but the main polluters are a minority - maybe 2 billion. So on a global scale this kind of language could actually fly.
Je me souviens.
...let's just agree that IF this is in fact a globally-critical issue, then we need to keep the patronizing post-colonial political correctness out of the room and just work to ACTUALLY fix the problem, eh?
To wit: we're not talking about yesterday, we're talking about today, and tomorrow.
That means we need to constrain the "Western Powers" significantly, but let's be honest - they're ALREADY doing the most to mitigate CO2 emissions (hell, even the US's emissions have gone down*). The 'problem children' now are India and China, and in the future the 3rd world developing states.
*if this statement bothers you, or if your first thought is to contradict it because "oh they just switched to Nat'l Gas" or to air some sort of fracking complaint, then you're already missing the entire point of the comment. FYI. If the goal is to critically reduce CO2 emissions, let's see the ecologists leading the charge for funding for fusion research and the development of pebble-bed reactors. If they feel that we need to "just stop using so much power" - they can start by shutting off their computers and quitting posting on the internet. Not reasonable or realistic? Then neither is the idea that we're going to suddenly use less power.
As long as the ecomarxists on the Left feel that this is the 'stick' with which they can enact their grievance-based, punitive anti-US, anti-North, anti-Western agenda, then they are going to (continue to) have problems being taken seriously.
If, OTOH, we actually consider this a serious threat, then we need to TREAT it like a serious threat and stop applying it with the intent of 'score settling' for whatever political hobby horse you're riding.
If your house is burning down, that's not the point at which Jimmy gets to complain that Janie got the better bedroom. Put out the fire. Period.
-Styopa
I'm somewhat fascinated that you think I give a crap about Republicans. You find it easier to ignore the sacrifice of our nation's ambassador in order to impute some irrational assignment of guilt. You might as well blame Clinton for being the pussy he was and not killing Bin Laden when he had a chance.
I'm from the WWII mentality. Iraq should have been a slaughterhouse for the Ba'ath Party. Less scandals, more removal of armed enemies.
Changing the nomenclature again is going to increase skepticism.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well, for 30 or so years. But what then? Then you have a huge pile of radioactive crap sitting there that you can't really get rid of sensibly and that will continue to sit there for a few millennia.
4th gen reactors use waste from previous generation reactors as fuel. The 4th gen waste is only hazardous for a few hundred years.
http://www.ga.com/energy-multi...
The deniers can be satisfied just by disrupting the opposing position, rather than advancing any position of their own. That frees them from the requirements to make consistent or even logical arguments.
Because nothing major is going to happen in the next couple of years it's in human nature to do nothing about it as we think tend to think the future will have the best possible outcome.
If they're supporting nuclear then they aren't environmentalists.
Actually they are. They looked at the science and realize that if we don't use nuclear in the near term then we will continue to be using fossil fuels. That renewables are regrettable not there yet. These people are all for conservation, solar, wind, etc ... they just accept the science that these can't get us as far as we want. Especially with the billions of people in the developing world coming on to the electric grid. In short, that conservation, renewables and nuclear all need to be part of the solution. To say that nuclear does not need to be a part of the fossil fuel solution is to deny reality, much like the climate change deniers. Nuclear and climate deniers are remarkably similar, just calling different ends of the political spectrum their home, both abusing scientific reality.
Everyone should be aware that there was a paper published in the 50s which used the term "climatic change". bell labs also had a video they produced about co2 and its warming properties in the 50s as well. there is even a journal (like science journal) called "climate change" which was founded in the 70s. the common idea that "climate change" is new is honestly 60+ years old. i mean the terminology
Denial is not the exclusive domain of the religious right, conservatives, paid shills, traditionalists or the uneducated. But if you haven't figured out that the controversy is trumped up by the ignorant and those whose financial fortunes are tied to denial, then you're just plain ignorant.
The IPCC's 5th Assessment is now out, and the science has been vindicated, again. Get on with life, and find a way to participate in a responsible and constructive manner by helping rather than hindering the world's response to the biggest ongoing experiment ever to theaten the biosphere, us.
A friend looked at getting solar to offset the air conditioning. It seemed a perfect fit, air conditioning use highly correlates with bright sunshine in California. California generally cools off at night so no AC is needed, unlike other regions of the country.
However when he started to look into the details he found that things were far more complicated than the brief little articles found on the web. One problem was the lifespan of the solar panels. Their efficiency degrades. They need to be replaced in 10-12 years, or at least the inexpensive sourced in China panels do. This and other complications showed him that the typical pays-for-itself-in-X-years-calculations that are commonly tossed around are BS.
The short story is that economic solar power is going to come from large scale industrial solar plants that feed the standard grid, much like the hydro, coal and natural gas plants feeding the standard grid. Its not going to come from home solar panels. Home solar panels need a justification other than economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
drmad
Approximately a dozen people associated with the State Department - sworn officers, US employees, local employees, and their family members - die in the line of duty every year, consistently for the last 30 years. Very tough, but it is part of the job. Ambassadors who deliberately insert themselves in very dangerous situations - such as attempting to broker among factions in a war-torn land - are of course going to have a higher death rate.
BTW, follow up reporting has shown that the US-made hate video did play a role in rioting in Benghazi that day. Not that it mattered to the specific situation once the ambassador made the decisions to try to get personally involved in that specific situation.
sPh
The Luntz memo.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Kinda sounds like a syndrome or something...
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Yep, time to rename politicians from "Politician" to "Hot Air Blower"
Be seeing you...
I kept wondering what happened to "global warming" Was hard to tell when climate change meant "global warming" or actual change in climate. I like "global climate disruption" because it sounds stupid so I would know it for what it is, global warming. It is sad that they have to keep changing the name to try to get people to believe it.
After Al Gore displayed less class than the abominable Richard Nixon (dragging a close election through the courts and endless re-counts - something Nixon told HIS party not to do in 1960 to avoid harming the country), George W Bush (who I am NOT a fan of) was severely delayed in getting his administration in place; Normally, the new guy spends the 3 months between the election and his innauguration setting-up his administration, but with Gore fighting and re-counting it was a lot harder for the new team to both fight Gore, AND convince lots of people to abandon their other jobs and go to D.C. to prepare to be in an administration that could end-up not existing depending on the whims of the judicial branch.
As a result, on 9-11 (2001) it was Bill Clinton's appointee George Tenet (Democrat) serrving as CIA director and NOT some Republican Bush appointee. Many other parts of the executive branch were sill in the hands of the Democrats on that day too... George Bush himself had only been in office a few months, while you lefties claim Obama is not responsible for his administration 5 years in. To borrow from the Obamabots: "Dude, it's been over two years!"
"Comprehensive Climate Reform" to be passed through congress as the "Climate Reform And Protection [CRAP] bill" which an infamous googly-eyed dingbat congress woman from the Bay Area will tell us we have to vote to pass before we can know what's in it...
John Holdren spent many years pickling his brain at Berzerkly before teaming-up with Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s to predict all sorts of (secular) the-end-is-near paranoid delusions in the 1970s. They and their friends predicted the world would run out of certain vital metals, run out of water, run out of food, run out of living space, make the climate cooler (bringing on a new ice age) or hotter (the current fad eco-paranoia) and nearly every-other non-religious world-ending scenario one can imagine.
Ever wonder where all those campy world-ending movies of the 1970s (like "Silent Running" and "Soylent Green") came from???? Hollywood was lapping-up all the crap Ehrlich and Holdren were spouting. Admittedly, some of the stories had been in scifi literature before that time, but the Hollywood view that they would sell as movies to the audiences of those times was driven by the fact that Ehrlich, Holdren, and friends were spreading their catastrophe tales through the culture in books, magazines, and speeches.
As a general rule, if you want to know the future, listen to John Holdren and then presume the opposite. On matters of technology, I'd consider an Amish buggy-driver to be more-knowlegable than Holdren, and in matters of climate prediction, I'd go with Punxsutawney Phil over Holdren (Phil has a better track record).
Good, an informative comment.
I like Amory Lovins' twist: 'Global Weirding'.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
"They did a similar thing to James Hansen, he gave a talk on his work and was told he couldn't talk about it in public without permission from NASA's political minders."
FALSE. Hansen was probably (IANAL) in gross violation of the Hatch act - using his position at NASA for politics. The man was holding pressers and making bold claims that the press would then grab sandbag Bush administration officials with. As a result, some journalist would ask a non-scientist person in the administration something climate-related, the official would give some off-the-cuff answer and then the jounalist would slam him/her with something like "well, that's not what your NASA scientist Mr Hansen said! He says {insert hansen quote here}". This left a lot of unhappiness in the bureacrats who were subjected to this treatment, and so Hansen was informed that he needed to give his superiors a heads-up on what he was pumping-out (something that's standard practice in most organizations). Apparently the sandbagging was part of Hansen's agenda (making your bosses squirm is fun particularly when you have a high opinion of yourself and a low opinion of your superiors) so the guy went on to hold many pressers announcing that he was being repressed [insert applicable fave Monty Python clip here]. The final government study of the whole affair uncovered ONE incident in which Hansen was prevented from a press appearance (becuase his superiors believed he was likely to illegally veer-off into political/policy matters rather than sticking to science) and NO scientific work of Hansen's that was blocked from the public (there'd been several instances of PR people editing Hansen's press releases, but NOT his actual work product, which was as openly published as any other similar work). Incidentally, the Obama administration has even stricter controls in place over employees speaking to the press - consider that none of the survivors of the Benghazi raid (one obvious example, which team Obama insists was nearly a non-event) is allowed to speak to the press or even testify to congress; congress had to fight to even get the NAMES of these people (who are on the government payroll and funded by congressional actions)
How about we get serious about it and use a much more appropriate terms: Global Ecological Catastrophe and Pollution Crisis.
By your reckoning it then takes 3 years to burn all the biomass, leaving the Earth as a dead hulk.
Oh, wait.... this argument's been going on for a LOT more than three years..... the Earth should already be lifeless..... ahhhhhh.... because plants and animals grow back (they are renewable resources). and THAT's why we're not already all dead as your hyperbolic rhetoric suggests we should be. Oh, and, while we're at it: we're not even creating or destroying any carbon. Carbon is the basic building block of life, an element in the periodic table - NOT some synthetic goo of dubious origin. Only an AGW fanatic sees carbon as an evil element of DEATH and destruction. We grow plants, which take-in carbon, and then we destroy the plants (burning them, eating them, etc), liberating the carbon.... rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat
If you get rid of all the carbon, or "sequester" it, you will kill all life on Earth. The time is long-past to end this sinister war against life on Earth. You global warming fanatics need to all follow your dreams to their logical conclusions and join the VHEMT and leave the rest of us to enjoy our lives and the spectacular world of carbon-based life we live in.
Funny though that you guys never seem to be upset by all the money "big oil" spends on "green" stuff.
Your bigger intellectual problem, however, is that when government funds the stuff you like it does it by stealing money from MY wallet at gunpoint. When "Big Oil" spends money, it takes that money from its own bank accounts. The greenie complaint about "Big Oil" getting subsidies is a scam - oil companies do not get subsidies (money taken, by force, from others and given to them) they just get the same type of tax breaks that other businesses get (i.e. they are not taxed on some of their income because it is acknowledged that this money is being put back into the activity as a cost and is not a profit). Most "green" companies, on the other hand, get ACTUAL subsidies - government takes money from some people and gives it to those "green" companies to fool people into thinking those activities are efficient and cost-effective or cost-competative - ACTUAL subsidies like this should NEVER occur in a "free market" because they encourage sub-optimal economic activity.
What riot? The ambassador was walking around outside an hour before the assault.
If they're supporting nuclear then they aren't environmentalists.
And do you have a reason for saying this?
Yes, the plants have a different design and they don't have the same level of risk. But they still have a certain lifetime and then you don't know what the fuck to do with the tons of contaminated metal and concrete.
You could always make them part of the next plant or just stick them in a hole in the ground. Ground water pollution especially from low grade contaminated material like this is ridiculously overrated.
The real elephant in the room is conservation, but addicts don't want to give up their fix.
The problem with this thoughtless suggestion is that we are all energy "addicts" because we need to be in order to survive and actually do things. We are just as much air addicts or food addicts. There's always someone out there who thinks the world never has realized that energy consumption has a cost to the consumer and that it would be possible to reduce that cost by consuming less energy. The world keeps consuming energy because there are better things to do out there than merely consume less energy.
No. Because names have power.
We have been calling our enemies "evil", "bad guys" and variations of the same since time immemorial.
And witness how much time, effort and money the RIAA spent to try and link copyright infringement to "piracy".
And how the "Patriot Act" has nothing to do with encouraging or fostering patriotism.
When someone proposes a name change for any subject, you can bet his intention is to try and change public perception of that subject to something that suits his taste.
Scientists like Sagan and Tyson do such a great job explaining science to the public because they learned to explain things to the public in the public's language, using the public's understanding and connotations. "Change" works in this sense, "disruption" fails.
All of this of course also ignores that Silicon Valley has been trying to sell to the american public that "disruption" is a good thing for years... Pop-news sites like CNN pundits even muse about how great it would be if those Silicon Valley guys would just "disrupt government" the way they have with markets... *sigh*
Like what gives this government or any other government the right to experiment with the very ionosphere and atmosphere of this planet? Super heaters should be destroyed. HAARP is an ABOMINATION and they damn well know it.
He used up all his brain cells coming up with the words "fuck" and "shit"
He's the high-caliber sort that gets all his talking points from web sites funded by the old billionaire NAZI collaborator George Soros.... he forgot his "talking points" about hating billionaires and their influence on politics. To be fair though, those talking points can be mighty confusing, given the evil guy who funds them though his web of hundreds of deceptively-named "progressive" organizations (each of which is an evil corporate "person") ...
I'm old enough to remember that it was first called "The Greenhouse Effect", a name still lingering when speaking of "greenhouse gases". I have often suspected that the term was dropped when alarmists realized that most people consider greenhouses to be pretty effective ecosystems reminiscent of living in Hawaii.
Is there a global conspiracy among hackers to break into systems and steal your shit? No, it's just a bunch of like minded people doing what's in the nature, which is to follow the money and try to get some of it. "Scientists" are much the same. They need the funds and the Politicians are interested in "Global Warming" so that's where the funds are. It's like holding out a piece of meat to a dog. They will do whatever they think you want them to do for for it.
Grant money is NOT given out to disprove AGW. The publications won't accept anything that doesn't support AGW. Fuck, News papers and other sites don't accept anything that is not supportive of AGW. A scientist being skeptical is like a politician using the word Niggardly. Everyone loses their shit and funds dry up, department heads call you into the office and you find yourself working in a closet with an Atari 64.
All you are is a shill for Al Gore, Greenies and everyone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else. You notice you leg is wet? It's not because it's raining. It's because the Grant seeking whores are pissing on it and telling you it's raining.
But then, so is gravity, why isn't there any debate over that one?
Well obviously because the gravity hoax is one that serves the interests of both sides of politics and has done for centuries. Sheesh!
Yes, because David Kirkpatrick says it is so. There's a unbias source. /sarcasm
This isn't just with global warming
It's discrimination against white people...
No wait, it's "reverse discrimination"...
No wait, it's "affirmative action"...
No wait...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Maybe. Coal emits a ridiculous amount of radiation... Also, according to the Torch report, 60k people died from Chernobyl, which is a tragedy, but a drop in the bucket compared to coal.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
bull stuff for the purpose of control. We ALL affect climate by existing. If your so pissed off about 400PPM of carbon dioxide in the air go plant a tree and quit having children. The point of life is not to see how many people we can flood the planet with and see how little we can survive on to do it. Each person has an environmental impact and unless we want to live on bread and water and walk everywhere we should think of the carrying capacity of the planet as a function of technological capability, (what is the carrying capacity at varying levels of quality of life based on technological capacity), What is the cost of removing carbon vs leaving it (I don't think the drama queens like Al Gore and IPCC have even scraped the top of this barrel). Then when we know this information it should be disseminated in a schedule of here is where we are and here is where we need to be and then based on good science (very little of this is going on right now) and a bit of common sense decide what we are going to do about it. The sun IS getting warmer (it will continue to do so until we reach red giant stage and start burning helium) and we could come up with some novel solutions such as using climate to our advantage, turning deserts into solar power houses, generating biodiesel and using it, and living high on the hog and driving huge SUV's, motor-homes and boats around because we were smart enough to create a thriving economy and an abundance of fuel through effective use of the environment instead of submitting to government control and plodding idiocy like we can't think or innovate more than the political hacks that currently claim to have our best interests at heart. We as a people are smarter than our government, the IPCC, the EPA and the regulatory death grip they have on our economy.
Freaking end of rant, nuff said, TACO's for everybody.
Bad spelling grammar and run on sentences provided free of charge.
And the waste from 4th gen is short lived. Hundred of years rather than tens of thousands.
"Short lived" is an euphemism for "highly radioactive".
Anything is better than "climate change". Climates change. They always have. They always will. "Global Climate Disruption" at least suggests a negative.
There is a concept from marketing known as branding. Brands are not merely a convenient name by which your company or product is known. Consumers respond to brands themselves, either positively or negatively. This is known as brand equity.
A brand with good equity will sell a product simply by having its name attached to it. A Calvin Klein shirt will sell for more than a comparable shirt from a less famous brand. Likewise, a brand with bad equity will inhibit sales of an otherwise good product.
Brands that become toxic are abandoned. The company will change its name, or change the name of the product, or release a new product under a new name. Phillip Morris changed its name to Altria for example. IBM sold off its hard drive business to another firm when their "Deathstar" line of drives became irredeemably associated with poor quality.
Ideas also have brands.
When an idea keeps getting rebranded under new names, it means the people peddling that idea are having a hard time. The more familiar potential consumers (believers) of that idea become with it, the more likely they are to reject it. So the people who want to push that idea repackage it under a new name and try to pretend it is something different.
I'm not surprised that global warming / climate change / climate chaos / etc has been given yet another name. I'm just surprised that it took them so long to think one up.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
The people in the White House are now the ones naming the science: I'm sure their only motivation is in the best interest of the scientific community.
Why not call it what it is? Human activity is destroying the environment and making the planet inhospitable. How about "anti-terraforming" or "terraf*cking?" Maybe just plain "screwing up the planet" or "doing it wrong?"
No, solar panels do NOT "need to be replaced in 10-12 years".
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
"The majority of manufacturers offer the 25-year standard solar panel warranty, which means that power output should not be less than 80% of rated power after 25 years."
Even the ones that drop the most, efficiency wise, are still at 80% or better after 11 years.
the typical pays-for-itself-in-X-years-calculations that are commonly tossed around are BS
No, those calculations take the decreased efficiency into account.
I disagree. Not many outside of the scientific community believe humans have any real capacity to change the Earth's climate permanently. Maybe disruption is more believable and less alarmist to the average person. Maybe to the point that they would no longer roll their eyes when they read the one line summary of another report about how terrible the Earth is going to be in fifty years.
OTOH "change" is fairly value-neutral, while "disruption" is negative. From the perspective of someone who wants the public to be scared and be willing to accept the costs of preventing or mitigating it, disruption is a better choice.
Personally, I don't really care. I don't believe there's anything we can seriously do to alter what's going to happen so we're better off focusing on how we're going to live with the results.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The real elephant in the room is conservation, but addicts don't want to give up their fix.
I sure as hell don't, and -- though you'll never admit it -- neither do you.
The sort of conservation that would actually make a difference isn't swapping out a few bulbs, tweaking the temperature on the thermostat a little and taking the bus to work. To seriously reduce energy consumption would require significant decreases in the standard of living in the wealthy world and -- even worse and even less likely to happen -- would require suppressing and even rolling back improvements in the developing world. The latter is particularly nasty because (a) it appears that developing economies more or less must go through a phase during which they pollute like crazy in order to lift themselves up to a level where they can start being a bit cleaner and (b) wealth reduces the birth rate, and getting population growth under control (which we're actually on track to do, assuming we don't go mucking with the socioeconomic forces too severely) is even more important than conservation on a per-person basis.
Conservation is good, and definitely worth a lot of attention, but it's only 20% of any realistic answer. We'll learn to live without polar ice caps rather than forgo all of the benefits of cheap, plentiful energy, so those who continue opposing the cleanest, safest form of energy production yet created are shooting themselves in the foot.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Our Conservative government did exactly that a few years back. Generally not "environmental" friendly (oil sands), but came up with the "Clean Air Act". Which isn't addressing "Climate Change" but rather pollution.
The problem with pollution is that is is predominantly a "local" connotation. You might have some neighborly pollution crossover, but generally speaking you are addressing a local issue. Climate Change, or Global Warming or whatever is basically saying that certain kinds of pollution are *not* local, and have global consequences.
The difficulty is that politically "pollution" is actually rather easy (relatively speaking) to deal with. Make some standards, come to an agreement with your immediate neighbor. Done. With the climate change, you are taking about coming to an agreement with the entire rest of the world, most of which do not want any part of it to begin with. Coal usage in China for example. This gets into the whole, "well if your not going to do it, then I am not going hurt my economy by doing it either" sort of mentality.
Climate change has never really been an environmental problem. It suggests that certain pollution may have global consequences, which is a political problem as no framework exists to deal with that sort of cooperation.
I suggest "Human-made Global Climate Fuckup that Will Kill Us All If We Just Sit On Our Asses and Do Nothing About It". Or, if mass death won't budge the policy makers, because "it would cost zillions of dollars to implement the proposed solutions, and that would bring the economy down", find a way to express the costs of the climate fuckup in zillions of dollars as well, so it can be compared easily.
I think "Global Greening Gas Emission" would be more accurate. With all the extra CO2 just look at how green our planet is getting! Plant food is good.
Seriously the whole "CO2 controls climate" theory is so broken. After 17 years of rising CO2 and no warming they are trying to change the name, again. Next they will be telling us that "CO2 causes ice ages".
So a serious question to all those who are of the opinion that CO2 controls climate: How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit that you and your theory are wrong? 20 years? 30? 50? Never?
The whole point of the matter is that to be considered a scientific theory you HAVE to make predictions based on your theory. Dr Libby's prediction from the 1970s (3+ decades of accuracy), Dr Easterbrook's (12 years), Dr Abdussamatov (8 years). They all have correctly called for a cooling period of varying depths and lengths. So far they have been correct and the IPCC models wrong.
So step up to the plate and make a prediction! I'll side with the above 3 and say we're in for 2 decades of colder climate.
Thankfully CFCs and their ilk were banned in time, and turned that damage around. But that doesn't make news ratings, huh?
The simple goal should be to spew as little as possible, regardless of the potential issues.
Do campfires count as "pollution"? If a cow's methane emissions count as pollution, do yours?
The simple goal should be to find out how much pollution is sustainable, and aim for that amount. That way we can optimize human utility instead.
I can't suffer through another 450+ comments with the same, exact arguments and neither side having any interest at all in listening to the other.
Murphy was an optimist
Or we could choose to freeze to death in the dark...
How about call it "Putting all that nasty carbon back from whence it came?"
That's the great thing about the conspiracy theorists. They don't have to say anything. "what moon landing", not "The moon landing was staged in Studio 51 in Hollywood on the MGM lot," and then we can prove there isn't and never was a studio 51, or find people working there that day to get testimony and photographs proving it didn't happen there.
So what's the exact claim? The attack was a targeted assassination? What's the problem with that? That the administration did a PR spin on the attack to calm the situation? That Bush's cuts on security had the result of the death of an ambassador (the problem being that Obama is responsible for not fixing all Bush's problems fast enough)?
Why can't the conspiracy theorists state their claims clearly and concisely?
Learn to love Alaska
It's not theory when it's fact that a story was made up to deflect culpability from denied security requests from the ambassador.
So what? No, really. So what? So the "cover up" that didn't happen, because, as you say it's all "fact" was to cover up some denied requests for additional security?
As you say: What security problem? "The ambassador was walking around outside an hour before the assault." Had he thought there such laz security, wouldn't he have taken greater measures to keep himself safe in such an unsafe environment?
Learn to love Alaska
Is it now a requirement to be completely ignorant?
Five hundred million years ago we had CO2 levels approaching 5,000ppm. We currently have less than 400 ppm. What ten times our current CO2 levels caused was giant plants creating an abundance of oxygen which supported giant critters. The oceans failed to turn acidic (they sit in basalt basins.) It was a very prosperous time for life on the planet. After 50 million years of CO2 levels of 5,000ppm the planet entered an ice age lasting millions of years. The high CO2 levels did not keep us very warm.
A real scientist would set out the raw original data. They would give out the records as to where the original data was collected and what time periods were collected. They would explain how they homogenize and cook the record set. A real scientist would set all this out and DARE the world to find fault with their theories because that is how science advances. A real scientist knows that no science is ever settled.
The so-called climate scientists say they lost the raw dataset. They say they have no records as to where the records came from or when it came from. They refuse to relate the methods they have used to cook the data. They have illegally refused FOIA requests for data. They have tried to shut down peer reviewed journals where skeptical scientists have been published. They refuse to show their work. This is not science. These climate scientists are greedy liars who do it for the billions in grant money. They (Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Hansen) are all filthy rich.
Your really don't know anything about this topic, do you?
It's a routine (but unfortunate) attack on a US embassy. Not the first, won't be the last. And the conservative conspiracy nuts are making it out to be an impeachable offense, but can't name the offense. Is it the PR fraud to promote the idea of control? Or is it not having OK'd requests for security? The "cover-up" was obviously not actionable because there was none, as you state the events are all fact, and thus not in dispute, as they would have been with a cover-up.
So where's the problem? Everyone I've asked about it who thinks the administration is to blame changes their story. The best you can to do answer any questions is to insult me. If you are incapable of forming a coherent statement, that's not my fault. Why are you incapapble of stating your opinion in a clear and concise manner? Is it beacuse you don't care what the "facts" are you talk about, but you just use it as a reason to hate someone you already hated. You must really love Obama deep down, if you have to keep searching so hard for reasons to hate him and his administration.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not ok with being blatantly lied to.
No, solar panels do NOT "need to be replaced in 10-12 years".
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/ "The majority of manufacturers offer the 25-year standard solar panel warranty, which means that power output should not be less than 80% of rated power after 25 years."
Even the ones that drop the most, efficiency wise, are still at 80% or better after 11 years.
Not the cheap panels currently being imported from China, which is what many local solar contractors are switching to. These things aren't being made to the specs and designs you are assuming.
No, solar panels do NOT "need to be replaced in 10-12 years".
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/ "The majority of manufacturers offer the 25-year standard solar panel warranty, which means that power output should not be less than 80% of rated power after 25 years." Even the ones that drop the most, efficiency wise, are still at 80% or better after 11 years.
Warranties from some Chinese firms are now 10-12 years. Found a relevant article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05...
"Executives at companies that inspect Chinese factories on behalf of developers and financiers said that over the last 18 months they have found that even the most reputable companies are substituting cheaper, untested materials."
"“There are a lot of shortcuts being taken, and unfortunately it’s by some of the more reputable companies and there’s also been lot of new companies starting up in recent years without the same standards we’ve had at Suntech,” said Stuart Wenham, the chief technology officer of Suntech, which is based in Jiangsu Province in eastern China."
"“If the materials aren’t good or haven’t been thoroughly tested, they won’t stick together and the solar module will eventually fall apart in the field,” he said."
So you don't interact with the world at all? Nearly every commercial is a lie. All news is lies (the amusement is watching people argue about the types of lies told by the carious outlets). Even the conspiracy theorists lie. Many of the claims were deliberately inflated to call attention, then "refined" as the truth came out. Bush lied all the time (probably more), were you equally outraged then? "Read my lips, no new taxes" was followed up by more taxes, and millions more after that.
Learn to love Alaska
what is normal climate?
So all solar is crap then, eh? Does that mean that all nuclear power is crap because the Russians and the Japanese have managed to screw the nuclear pooch, or does it mean you get what you pay for?
Always amusing at fans of nuclear power, which requires billions to construct plants and house hazardous waste for dozens of generations into the future, cluck about how $30,000 for solar panels or a few million for a windfarm is "impractical".
Always amusing at fans of nuclear power, which requires billions to construct plants and house hazardous waste for dozens of generations into the future, cluck about how $30,000 for solar panels or a few million for a windfarm is "impractical".
France, 75% nuclear, some of the lowest rates in Europe. Germany, 25% renewable, some of the highest rates in Europe. The billions of people in the developing world are coming on to the grid and going to be using the less expensive alternatives, that is either fossil fuel or nuclear. If nuclear is not part of the solution to move from fossil fuels then such a move is drastically delayed. That is the inconvenient truth. A 30 year time frame to move to 80% renewables is beyond wishful thinking, its fantasy. The science and engineering are not on that trajectory.
4th gen reactors can consume waste from previous gen reactors as fuel. Test reactors are running. 3rd gen commercial reactors are about to begin construction.
Low only by discounting the taxpayer subsidies propping up the industry. Particularly the cost of dealing with aging power plants and storing nuclear waste for centuries to come. Germany isn't going to be paying for today's solar panels in 2400, A.D. It's quite similar to how the true price of gas is far higher than $3.50 a gallon, when you look at the subsidies propping up that industry.