You seem to have missed the part where the number of carbon credits available are eventually reduced. That's the part that the international agreements are supposed to cover, if every state had a cap and trade system, then the international agreements would work on reducing the overall level of emissions allowed and shifting the allowed emissions to a uniform per-capita level across the world. Each nation would have to reduce the total amount of emissions allowed by it's trading system, that drives the price up for purchasers and encourages them to reduce their emissions. Eventually the price of emissions passes some internal price point where it becomes cheaper to invest in alternatives that produce fewer emissions.
You're both kind of idiots. But you actually don't understand him. His point is that pollution is actually carried across the Pacific ocean by winds, some percentage of Chinese emissions end up in the Western U.S. thus because of the vast disparity between pollution regulations in China and the U.S., the U.S. will eventually get as much pollution as it would have if the industries had never left in the first place (unless something changes).
Your strawman argument indicates that you don't understand. Given enough time one smoky exhaust would pollute the entire world, but fortunately it would take a very long time for a single tail pipe. However, there is a fundamental difference between a lone tail pipe, and China, the world's leading polluter. China by itself is now capable of geoengineering the planet. They've dimmed the atmosphere with sulfates and temporary reduced the global warming signal.
Here the real issue with climate change. It takes time to adapt to changes, we are probably driving climate change faster than nature can adapt to it. So while, technically the world at 4 degrees warmer could, in theory, be a better place. It's going to cost a lot of money and lives to get there. And when we get there nothing will be optimized for that climate. Areas that used to be great for growing crops may no longer be any good at all, areas that will eventually good for growing crops won't be ready for centuries naturally, so someone is going to have pay to have them artificially improved. Until that's done, people may starve if demand for food exceeds production capacity and although we can produce much more food than we need now, we don't know how much food production capacity we will lose and how much we could eventually gain.
The U.N. already calculates that we've lost about 4% of global crop yields due to climate change (a number which is, fortunately, much lower than the increases attributable to improved farming practices), that number could become much larger when we reach 2C or 4C where we may trigger tipping points. Those tipping points represent potential feedback mechanism that could trigger global extinction events. For instance, more than once in the pat 98% of the sea life has been killed off by warm, acidic oceans. How much better will the world be if there's a massive fish die off in the oceans? If the prairies become the deserts?
There is potential for gain, but there is a much greater potential for loss. We are running an uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have and we don't know what the outcome will be. Globally, we're acting about as responsible as the people who were in charge of Chernobyl. Let's hope the results aren't much worse.
That's why you hook up the solar plant to the oil creation system. Then you can generate all the oil you need....
This is likely to eventually happen actually, when oil starts getting more expensive that synthetically created oil, it'll probably be used to generate the long hydrocarbons needed for plastics and cosmetics, for example. And of course, for the inevitable eccentric billionaire "enthusiasts" who will still be be able to afford combustion-powered cars.
You should probably read this or at least look at the pretty graph. When someone tells you it's gotten colder over the last decade, they're "spinning" the facts to the point where they no longer mean anything. By taking a warm year in the past and comparing it to a more recent cold year, you can invent a graph that "proves" it's getting colder. The problem is you can do that for every decade and show how "it got colder" in every decade we have records for and yet since the 1950's every decade average temperature is higher than the previous decade.
That because cherry-picked data is used to confuse people and convince them that what they want to believe is true.
I thought one of the biggest problem with a nuclear (fusion) plant was that we don't have really have enough fuel for a wide scale adoption of the current designs. As I understand it, we have proven reserves of Uranium to last us 100 years at "current" usage rates. If we, say, tripled the current usage we'd only have enough fuel for about 30 years or roughly one power-plant generation of fuel. Any more than tripled and we'd be cutting into the usable lifespan of the plants.
You remember them finding a wooden house on a mountain and the claiming the fact that wood was found on a mountain meant it was the ark. As one historian put it "I don't recall any expedition that set out to find Noah's ark, that didn't ultimately [claim to] find it". Of course the really strange part is they never find it in the same place twice. It's truly amazing how they manage to find a new one every few years.
Temporary things can have value too you know. A child's smile doesn't last forever, but it is still worthwhile. In fact joy is valued because it is transient. Permanent joy can be accomplished with a pharmaceutical drip, however, such permanent bliss robs joy of all value and destroys the person subjected to it.
You need objective morality to have either good or evil.
Not exactly, moral relativists can consider things good or evil based on societal norms, for example.
For example, explain, on the atheistic worldview, what is 'evil' with burning a witch.
Well, in most atheistic world views there is no such thing as a witch, so to most atheists you are simply asking what is wrong with religious persecution and murder. Frankly, most atheists will tell you there's a lot wrong with it. Many atheists would tell you that it is wrong, evil if they feel like being dramatic, to deliberately harm another person. It's simply the golden rule: don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. It's interesting that you choose "burning a witch" to defend the morality of Christianity.
Actually, I've somewhat familiar with the original data, and I've seen similarly deceptive graphs before. So, yes, I can tell at a glance that they're manipulative shams, they're obviously missing critical features that should be present. The missing error bars for the models is a huge tip off that you're being snookered.
I strongly suspect they're talking about a publication being produced for the public. And if you're going to write something for general consumption by non-scientists then that is the way to communicate something clearly. It's pretty much how they teach you to write essays in English class.
Really? When are you going to publish every email you've ever written so that your enemies can campaign to have you fired? Doesn't sound like such a smart idea any more, does it? People like you seem to believe that people aren't entitled to have private conversations any more.
Actually, the "debate" changes based on whatever is most convenient for the deniers. This is commonly referred to as moving the goal posts. There are plenty of high profile deniers who say that the climate isn't changing. There are more who say it's no man-made. There are relatively few who say is will do more good than harm (though this is expected to be the next major position in the gradual retreat).
The simplest method to reduce greenhouse gases are taxes. Society will have to clean up after their mess, we might as well make them pay for it, otherwise we're all going to pay for it. That's the argument Richard Nixon made when he instituted the EPA and it's still true now. It's much better that the polluters pay for the pollution (especially if they try pass the costs to their customers, because that will encourage the customers to deal with cleaner companies). It's simple and effective and will drive Grover Norquist into an endless rage, which is why the Republicans are dead set against it. They don't want to piss off their sugar-daddy.
No, actually, Tisdale averaged the models together and then proved that the average doesn't model ENSO very well. Which is to be expected when you average multiple different models together you get a stronger trend line and less variability. Given that ENSO is effectively random, each of the individual models could model but that signal will cancelled out due to it's randomness. It should be expected, it's part of the fundamental nature of mathematical averaging and it renders Tisdale's observations moot because he made a significant procedural error that affects the outcome of his study.
Actually, it hasn't. You're not allowed to draw a line through any two points in a graph and call it a trend. Graphs don't work that way. There's a very informative graph on this page that should explain how you are being deceived.
Where are the error bars on those graphs? Scientists don't predict future data with considerable noise without using error bars. I also note that the end points have been cherry picked in both cases to end on a colder than average year to give the impression to statistically ignorant people that the temperature will continue downward instead of bouncing back up.
It looks like you're linking to cases of "lies, damn lies and statistics".
Specifically those graphs have been manipulated to mislead people like you.
Every year they can delay the inevitable shift away from hydrocarbons is another year of record profits.
Every year they can delay the inevitable shift away from hydrocarbons is another year to consolidate ownership of solar and wind companies.
Every year they can convince politicians that global warming isn't real, is another year they get to keep billions in subsidies.
There's three right there. Of course they're covering their butts, they want to keep making money after oil. However, they money they spend funding propaganda to muddy the waters represents a small fraction of the money they receive from governments in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. They have to make sure that they're out of the oil business before the public really understands what they've been doing. As long as the reasonable doubt lingers they won't end up facing massive lawsuits like the cigarette companies eventually did.
Yet last year the federal government brought in over 2 trillion in tax receits. Did they confiscate over 50% of the "wealth" of the rich?
You also don't seem to understand the difference between "cash reserves" and "wealth".
You would greatly benefit from educating yourself before trying to participate in conversations that are so clearly beyond your ability to understand. Your attempts at participation are only making you look ignorant and stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have missed the part where the number of carbon credits available are eventually reduced. That's the part that the international agreements are supposed to cover, if every state had a cap and trade system, then the international agreements would work on reducing the overall level of emissions allowed and shifting the allowed emissions to a uniform per-capita level across the world. Each nation would have to reduce the total amount of emissions allowed by it's trading system, that drives the price up for purchasers and encourages them to reduce their emissions. Eventually the price of emissions passes some internal price point where it becomes cheaper to invest in alternatives that produce fewer emissions.
You're both kind of idiots. But you actually don't understand him. His point is that pollution is actually carried across the Pacific ocean by winds, some percentage of Chinese emissions end up in the Western U.S. thus because of the vast disparity between pollution regulations in China and the U.S., the U.S. will eventually get as much pollution as it would have if the industries had never left in the first place (unless something changes).
Your strawman argument indicates that you don't understand. Given enough time one smoky exhaust would pollute the entire world, but fortunately it would take a very long time for a single tail pipe. However, there is a fundamental difference between a lone tail pipe, and China, the world's leading polluter. China by itself is now capable of geoengineering the planet. They've dimmed the atmosphere with sulfates and temporary reduced the global warming signal.
Here the real issue with climate change. It takes time to adapt to changes, we are probably driving climate change faster than nature can adapt to it. So while, technically the world at 4 degrees warmer could, in theory, be a better place. It's going to cost a lot of money and lives to get there. And when we get there nothing will be optimized for that climate. Areas that used to be great for growing crops may no longer be any good at all, areas that will eventually good for growing crops won't be ready for centuries naturally, so someone is going to have pay to have them artificially improved. Until that's done, people may starve if demand for food exceeds production capacity and although we can produce much more food than we need now, we don't know how much food production capacity we will lose and how much we could eventually gain.
The U.N. already calculates that we've lost about 4% of global crop yields due to climate change (a number which is, fortunately, much lower than the increases attributable to improved farming practices), that number could become much larger when we reach 2C or 4C where we may trigger tipping points. Those tipping points represent potential feedback mechanism that could trigger global extinction events. For instance, more than once in the pat 98% of the sea life has been killed off by warm, acidic oceans. How much better will the world be if there's a massive fish die off in the oceans? If the prairies become the deserts?
There is potential for gain, but there is a much greater potential for loss. We are running an uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have and we don't know what the outcome will be. Globally, we're acting about as responsible as the people who were in charge of Chernobyl. Let's hope the results aren't much worse.
That's why you hook up the solar plant to the oil creation system. Then you can generate all the oil you need....
This is likely to eventually happen actually, when oil starts getting more expensive that synthetically created oil, it'll probably be used to generate the long hydrocarbons needed for plastics and cosmetics, for example. And of course, for the inevitable eccentric billionaire "enthusiasts" who will still be be able to afford combustion-powered cars.
True and I think that says much about the reason and sensibility of those who object to renewable energy given the poor quality of this article.
You should probably read this or at least look at the pretty graph. When someone tells you it's gotten colder over the last decade, they're "spinning" the facts to the point where they no longer mean anything. By taking a warm year in the past and comparing it to a more recent cold year, you can invent a graph that "proves" it's getting colder. The problem is you can do that for every decade and show how "it got colder" in every decade we have records for and yet since the 1950's every decade average temperature is higher than the previous decade.
That because cherry-picked data is used to confuse people and convince them that what they want to believe is true.
I thought one of the biggest problem with a nuclear (fusion) plant was that we don't have really have enough fuel for a wide scale adoption of the current designs. As I understand it, we have proven reserves of Uranium to last us 100 years at "current" usage rates. If we, say, tripled the current usage we'd only have enough fuel for about 30 years or roughly one power-plant generation of fuel. Any more than tripled and we'd be cutting into the usable lifespan of the plants.
You remember them finding a wooden house on a mountain and the claiming the fact that wood was found on a mountain meant it was the ark. As one historian put it "I don't recall any expedition that set out to find Noah's ark, that didn't ultimately [claim to] find it". Of course the really strange part is they never find it in the same place twice. It's truly amazing how they manage to find a new one every few years.
Temporary things can have value too you know. A child's smile doesn't last forever, but it is still worthwhile. In fact joy is valued because it is transient. Permanent joy can be accomplished with a pharmaceutical drip, however, such permanent bliss robs joy of all value and destroys the person subjected to it.
Most atheists have to actually decide what meaning they will put into their lives, and they craft the meaning for themselves.
It's actually more difficult than being a Christian but also more rewarding.
You mean the testimony written a century or more after the face by people who spoke to people who knew the people who supposedly witnessed the events?
I'm sure any rational person will clearly tell you that 100 year old hearsay is the most reliable form of evidence.
You need objective morality to have either good or evil.
Not exactly, moral relativists can consider things good or evil based on societal norms, for example.
For example, explain, on the atheistic worldview, what is 'evil' with burning a witch.
Well, in most atheistic world views there is no such thing as a witch, so to most atheists you are simply asking what is wrong with religious persecution and murder. Frankly, most atheists will tell you there's a lot wrong with it. Many atheists would tell you that it is wrong, evil if they feel like being dramatic, to deliberately harm another person. It's simply the golden rule: don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. It's interesting that you choose "burning a witch" to defend the morality of Christianity.
i don't know what's wrong with teaching the controversy. The most difficult part is deciding which controversy to teach...
You should seriously take my advice and stop parading your ignorance for all to see. You're embarrassing yourself.
Actually, I've somewhat familiar with the original data, and I've seen similarly deceptive graphs before. So, yes, I can tell at a glance that they're manipulative shams, they're obviously missing critical features that should be present. The missing error bars for the models is a huge tip off that you're being snookered.
I strongly suspect they're talking about a publication being produced for the public. And if you're going to write something for general consumption by non-scientists then that is the way to communicate something clearly. It's pretty much how they teach you to write essays in English class.
Really? When are you going to publish every email you've ever written so that your enemies can campaign to have you fired? Doesn't sound like such a smart idea any more, does it? People like you seem to believe that people aren't entitled to have private conversations any more.
Actually, the "debate" changes based on whatever is most convenient for the deniers. This is commonly referred to as moving the goal posts. There are plenty of high profile deniers who say that the climate isn't changing. There are more who say it's no man-made. There are relatively few who say is will do more good than harm (though this is expected to be the next major position in the gradual retreat).
The simplest method to reduce greenhouse gases are taxes. Society will have to clean up after their mess, we might as well make them pay for it, otherwise we're all going to pay for it. That's the argument Richard Nixon made when he instituted the EPA and it's still true now. It's much better that the polluters pay for the pollution (especially if they try pass the costs to their customers, because that will encourage the customers to deal with cleaner companies). It's simple and effective and will drive Grover Norquist into an endless rage, which is why the Republicans are dead set against it. They don't want to piss off their sugar-daddy.
No, actually, Tisdale averaged the models together and then proved that the average doesn't model ENSO very well. Which is to be expected when you average multiple different models together you get a stronger trend line and less variability. Given that ENSO is effectively random, each of the individual models could model but that signal will cancelled out due to it's randomness. It should be expected, it's part of the fundamental nature of mathematical averaging and it renders Tisdale's observations moot because he made a significant procedural error that affects the outcome of his study.
The rise has been stopped for 13 years now.
Actually, it hasn't. You're not allowed to draw a line through any two points in a graph and call it a trend. Graphs don't work that way. There's a very informative graph on this page that should explain how you are being deceived.
Where are the error bars on those graphs? Scientists don't predict future data with considerable noise without using error bars. I also note that the end points have been cherry picked in both cases to end on a colder than average year to give the impression to statistically ignorant people that the temperature will continue downward instead of bouncing back up.
It looks like you're linking to cases of "lies, damn lies and statistics".
Specifically those graphs have been manipulated to mislead people like you.
Well let's see:
There's three right there. Of course they're covering their butts, they want to keep making money after oil. However, they money they spend funding propaganda to muddy the waters represents a small fraction of the money they receive from governments in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. They have to make sure that they're out of the oil business before the public really understands what they've been doing. As long as the reasonable doubt lingers they won't end up facing massive lawsuits like the cigarette companies eventually did.
Yet last year the federal government brought in over 2 trillion in tax receits. Did they confiscate over 50% of the "wealth" of the rich?
You also don't seem to understand the difference between "cash reserves" and "wealth".
You would greatly benefit from educating yourself before trying to participate in conversations that are so clearly beyond your ability to understand. Your attempts at participation are only making you look ignorant and stupid.
You've confused the debt and the deficit, please stop posting until you actually understand the issues.
Of course, Obama has promised to veto any bill that attempts to avoid those spending cuts. Congress will need 66% of it's members to vote to override the veto.