Converting to CO2 neutral sources of energy is not scary.
No, it isn't. I emit very little carbon in my day-to-day life. How about you?
Why should I care how much carbon you emit? Are you a sentient power station?
So it is irrational to say: it's not a problem science will solve everything yet simultaneously reject the prescription proscribed by the scientific method.
There are two sciences involved here: climate science and economics. Climate science only tells us what the climate might do under different emission scenarios. That's only a small part of the overall issue. You are completely ignoring the other, more important science. See, either you accept the scientific method wholly or you don't; you don't get to pick and choose.
Cite the relevant paper specifying that long term climate mitigation will cost more money than climate change adaptation.
The issue isn't whether we should reduce carbon emissions, but how. You subscribe to the idea that somehow our governments pass some laws, sign some international agreements, we all accept some inconvenience, and then the problem gets solved. In different words, you are a moron completely unfamiliar with economics, history, or politics.
Cite me making those claims, or retract your allegations.
The "extreme action" you advocate is not only difficult, it is ineffective, harmful, and counterproductive.
Cite the relevant scientific journal specifying that reducing emissions is ineffective.
A lot of money was spent on brainwashing you to that view
Possibly. But it happens to be the rational, scientific view.
Cite the relevant scientific journal specifying that reducing emissions is ineffective.
Exactly right. And notice how all of that happened without the US ratifying Kyoto? Without Doha passing?
Yes we noticed - rendering your protests against taking action completely ineffective, and your claim that we need to convince you and your douchebag mates of the need to take action a laughable fantasy. Better luck in the next life, douchebag.
Few people are denying that climate change is happening.
It is exactly as predicted. First deny it is getting warmer. Then later, deny the warming is due to human influences. The later, claim that nothing can be done anyway, we should curl up and die.
Well, we aren't going to curl up and die.
People opposing action on climate change for the most part simply believe that the kind of interventions you obviously favor are ineffective and harmful. Accusing their opponents of holding ridiculous positions is a standard m.o. of progressives.
But there is indeed is some minority of people who are simply unwilling to listen to anything progr-
I don't give 2 figs for your political views and your manic obsession with the people you term progressives. I'm not an American, so I don't care what happens in US elections.
You are missing the point. Attacking "denialism" doesn't advance the cause even a bit.
There is a growing tidal wave of anger about roll over the fraudulent liars who constructed the lies of denialism. I'm not talking about the ignorant loud mouths on Slashdot, who, having had their claims and assertions debunked, return a week later and repost those claims as if nothing happened. That is to say, they will get what's coming to them, but that is besides the point. I'm talking about the structures and groups who created and promoted these lies in the first place - politicians, fossil fuel companies and the PR companies that work for them.
Don't underestimate this anger.
Most of us have come to the conclusion that something is happening with climate. The thing is, no one is willing to take on a vow of poverty to stop an ambiguous threat that we can't even quantify is amenable to being stopped by humans.
You don't get to say whether the threat of climate change is ambiguous or not, because the level of ambiguity is defined by the science. If you want to describe that ambiguity, describe the science that measured the ambiguity. Otherwise your words are nonsense.
An asteroid can hit us tomorrow and despite all of our grandiose schemes, my feeling is that we won't be able to get our shit together to do anything about it when the time comes. Ditto climate. It's just not worth crippling economies for decades, perhaps centuries, to try to affect the problem. Idealists can drone on about the need for immediate action, but it'll never get traction as soon as it hits pocketbooks, employment and food supplies.
You don't get to decide on our behalf whether we are prepared to make the changes necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
It's an all or nothing proposition - either you accept the scientific method and the upsides (and downsides) that go with it, or you reject it. You don't get to accept some conclusions and not others. So it is irrational to say: it's not a problem science will solve everything yet simultaneously reject the prescription proscribed by the scientific method. Said proscription being that we need to modify our habits, so the we are no longer causing a net increase in GHG concentration, to the extent that there is a stabilization of the concentration or indeed a net decrease.
Also I think you misunderstand who is actually fearful. Converting to CO2 neutral sources of energy is not scary. It is not easy, but then we are supposed to be adults. We shouldn't shy away from something because it requires some effort or temporary inconvenience.
No, the fearful ones are those saying the science can't explain why the climate is changing, that the practice of the scientific method is insufficient to detail the reason why this is happening. The inevitable conclusion from this line of thinking is that we are helpless - we can do nothing about it except to be swept away like hapless penitents before an unfeeling deity.
So it's OK if they go straight through red lights that aren't in the database and drive along the sidewalk because the database is wrong, so long as they stop before they hit anything?
Well, yes. I have not problem with that, given that the purpose of red lights is to prevent collisions.
Humans go through red lights all the time. If it is ok for humans to make an occasional mistake, it's ok for self driving cars as well.
I was responding specifically to this question of yours: Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
You mean my question about the causal effects of the melting ice shelf. Unless you are claiming to know better than I what I meant?
I pointed you to a peer-reviewed article that details warming due to geothermal effects. I provided a reasonable reply to the question. If that good enough for your taste, too bad.
You admit you posted some irrelevant cites. We are still waiting for a relevant cite btw.
I "butted in" because I am sick and fuc -
Nope. Don't care.
I refer you again to the question I quoted above. If I misunderstood your question, perhaps you should have stated it more clearly.
Entry criteria is a basic grasp of english comprehension. Your failure is not my problem.
You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.
I professed no ignorance;
So you DO know what is causing the west antarctic ice shelf to melt? What is this cause?
I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.
Then why don't you try actually doing so, rather than the distorted versions you did print?
You deny saying : I'll help GP a bit and show you?
That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity.
The GP said this: Is that the [west antarctic ice shelf] that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
I asked for proof of this alleged causation, in the usual form of a scientific paper detailing the causation.
You, for some reason, butted in and said: I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
There is no logical explanation for this, except that you claiming the associated papers were proof of causation. Further i later explicitly described your attempts as an attempt to demonstrate causation:
Did you link to the right article? The article you linked makes no mention of geothermal effects being responsible for the shrinking of the west antarctic ice sheet.
I didn't see anybody claiming that there were no papers pertaining to geothermal activity. You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, unless you want to make an instant enemy. That's not ethical.
I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.
In summary, GSK (who makes the most promising vaccine) don't have enough manufacturing capacity to make this vaccine and other vaccines at the same time.
And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.
Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears. The framing of this as if the documents reveal some sort of 'scandal' is a bit troubling.
But again, this says that geothermal activity might contribute to mobility of the glacier, not that geothermal activity has increased over the last 100 years and is thus the cause of the west antarcitc ice shelf melting: per the GP's assertion: Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?. The assertion you claimed was supported by scientific papers: I'll help GP a bit and show you [ a paper detailing geothermal activity as the cause of the observed melting of the west antarctic ice shelf ].
Is there a paper that meets the criteria - or were you planning to keep posting articles on glacial mobility?
That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself,
That's right.
I'll help GP a bit and show you one. [pnas.org]
Did you link to the right article? The article you linked makes no mention of geothermal effects being responsible for the shrinking of the west antarctic ice sheet.
I guess you weren't as helpful as you initially hoped?
I daresay that geologists will disagree with you. So clearly, "boring" is not a scientific measure, it lacks objectivity.
Also regardless of that Mimas could hardly be considered a 'rock'. It's made of rock (well, mostly), but look at the thing:
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/s...
Saturn's moon Mimas was considered to be scientifically boring.
Is there really such a thing as a scale of scientific boredom? What is the unit of measure?
I'd understand if TS said: considered a lower priority compared to the other bizarre and wonderful things in orbit around Saturn. That's believable given the level of freaky associated with some of the other satellites. But nothing about Mimas says 'boring'. As for scientifically boring I don't think that is a thing.
Your earlier reply was insufficient - hence you are given the opportunity to do better.
When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.
You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.
And then sometime in the future converted by the addition of extra technology to convert CO2 to something else - thus making the technology CO2 neutral.
When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.
You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.
You've neutralised the CO2 emitted from process A using process B - the whole process is now converted to be carbon neutral. Would we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (from process A) without mitigating it? Answer: no we wouldn't, so we've mitigated it with process B (on the proviso we power process B with carbon neutral technologies) - so taking into account all externalities,we have converted to carbon neutral technology.
In short, by introducing process B, you haven't avoided converting process A, you HAVE converted process A.
Your entire strategy relies on converting to carbon neutral processes.
Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.
More hallucinations from you.
When you said Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical. you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.
You may not have directly said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.
Oh, I probably should have mentioned this before, but if you add a step to an existing process that converts the CO2 emitted to a different compound then you have (of course) converted that process to CO2 neutral. So your proposed process to convert CO2 to a different compound (sugars, organic compounds etc) is just another example of converting existing technologies to clean technology.
No conversion of machines required. Existing machines keep working unchanged to generate power, manufacture goods, etc.
Sure. Except for the ones you've already said will be replaced. I.e the ones that generate CO2. Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.
New machines do reverse conversion.
Of course, as you've already said attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive. So you would not continue to employ CO2 emitting generation technologies and then try and convert that CO2 to some other compound. That would be unbelievably moronic.
Slashdot Mirror
So in that scenario what happened to the warming that should have happened because of increased CO2 (CO2 being a greenhouse gas and all)?
Converting to CO2 neutral sources of energy is not scary.
No, it isn't. I emit very little carbon in my day-to-day life. How about you?
Why should I care how much carbon you emit? Are you a sentient power station?
So it is irrational to say: it's not a problem science will solve everything yet simultaneously reject the prescription proscribed by the scientific method.
There are two sciences involved here: climate science and economics. Climate science only tells us what the climate might do under different emission scenarios. That's only a small part of the overall issue. You are completely ignoring the other, more important science. See, either you accept the scientific method wholly or you don't; you don't get to pick and choose.
Cite the relevant paper specifying that long term climate mitigation will cost more money than climate change adaptation.
The issue isn't whether we should reduce carbon emissions, but how. You subscribe to the idea that somehow our governments pass some laws, sign some international agreements, we all accept some inconvenience, and then the problem gets solved. In different words, you are a moron completely unfamiliar with economics, history, or politics.
Cite me making those claims, or retract your allegations.
I accept it already
And I should care because (?)
The "extreme action" you advocate is not only difficult, it is ineffective, harmful, and counterproductive.
Cite the relevant scientific journal specifying that reducing emissions is ineffective.
A lot of money was spent on brainwashing you to that view
Possibly. But it happens to be the rational, scientific view.
Cite the relevant scientific journal specifying that reducing emissions is ineffective.
Exactly right. And notice how all of that happened without the US ratifying Kyoto? Without Doha passing?
Yes we noticed - rendering your protests against taking action completely ineffective, and your claim that we need to convince you and your douchebag mates of the need to take action a laughable fantasy. Better luck in the next life, douchebag.
Few people are denying that climate change is happening.
It is exactly as predicted. First deny it is getting warmer. Then later, deny the warming is due to human influences. The later, claim that nothing can be done anyway, we should curl up and die.
Well, we aren't going to curl up and die.
People opposing action on climate change for the most part simply believe that the kind of interventions you obviously favor are ineffective and harmful. Accusing their opponents of holding ridiculous positions is a standard m.o. of progressives.
But there is indeed is some minority of people who are simply unwilling to listen to anything progr-
I don't give 2 figs for your political views and your manic obsession with the people you term progressives. I'm not an American, so I don't care what happens in US elections.
You are missing the point. Attacking "denialism" doesn't advance the cause even a bit.
There is a growing tidal wave of anger about roll over the fraudulent liars who constructed the lies of denialism. I'm not talking about the ignorant loud mouths on Slashdot, who, having had their claims and assertions debunked, return a week later and repost those claims as if nothing happened. That is to say, they will get what's coming to them, but that is besides the point. I'm talking about the structures and groups who created and promoted these lies in the first place - politicians, fossil fuel companies and the PR companies that work for them.
Don't underestimate this anger.
Most of us have come to the conclusion that something is happening with climate. The thing is, no one is willing to take on a vow of poverty to stop an ambiguous threat that we can't even quantify is amenable to being stopped by humans.
You don't get to say whether the threat of climate change is ambiguous or not, because the level of ambiguity is defined by the science. If you want to describe that ambiguity, describe the science that measured the ambiguity. Otherwise your words are nonsense.
An asteroid can hit us tomorrow and despite all of our grandiose schemes, my feeling is that we won't be able to get our shit together to do anything about it when the time comes. Ditto climate. It's just not worth crippling economies for decades, perhaps centuries, to try to affect the problem. Idealists can drone on about the need for immediate action, but it'll never get traction as soon as it hits pocketbooks, employment and food supplies.
You don't get to decide on our behalf whether we are prepared to make the changes necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
It's an all or nothing proposition - either you accept the scientific method and the upsides (and downsides) that go with it, or you reject it. You don't get to accept some conclusions and not others. So it is irrational to say: it's not a problem science will solve everything yet simultaneously reject the prescription proscribed by the scientific method. Said proscription being that we need to modify our habits, so the we are no longer causing a net increase in GHG concentration, to the extent that there is a stabilization of the concentration or indeed a net decrease.
Also I think you misunderstand who is actually fearful. Converting to CO2 neutral sources of energy is not scary. It is not easy, but then we are supposed to be adults. We shouldn't shy away from something because it requires some effort or temporary inconvenience.
No, the fearful ones are those saying the science can't explain why the climate is changing, that the practice of the scientific method is insufficient to detail the reason why this is happening. The inevitable conclusion from this line of thinking is that we are helpless - we can do nothing about it except to be swept away like hapless penitents before an unfeeling deity.
So it's OK if they go straight through red lights that aren't in the database and drive along the sidewalk because the database is wrong, so long as they stop before they hit anything?
Well, yes. I have not problem with that, given that the purpose of red lights is to prevent collisions.
Humans go through red lights all the time. If it is ok for humans to make an occasional mistake, it's ok for self driving cars as well.
But I specifically deny expertise about the Western ice sheet. Maybe I'll go learn about it.
I suggest you do.
I was responding specifically to this question of yours: Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
You mean my question about the causal effects of the melting ice shelf. Unless you are claiming to know better than I what I meant?
I pointed you to a peer-reviewed article that details warming due to geothermal effects. I provided a reasonable reply to the question. If that good enough for your taste, too bad.
You admit you posted some irrelevant cites. We are still waiting for a relevant cite btw.
I "butted in" because I am sick and fuc -
Nope. Don't care.
I refer you again to the question I quoted above. If I misunderstood your question, perhaps you should have stated it more clearly.
Entry criteria is a basic grasp of english comprehension. Your failure is not my problem.
You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.
I professed no ignorance;
So you DO know what is causing the west antarctic ice shelf to melt? What is this cause?
I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.
Then why don't you try actually doing so, rather than the distorted versions you did print?
You deny saying : I'll help GP a bit and show you?
That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity.
The GP said this: Is that the [west antarctic ice shelf] that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
I asked for proof of this alleged causation, in the usual form of a scientific paper detailing the causation.
You, for some reason, butted in and said: I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
There is no logical explanation for this, except that you claiming the associated papers were proof of causation. Further i later explicitly described your attempts as an attempt to demonstrate causation:
Did you link to the right article? The article you linked makes no mention of geothermal effects being responsible for the shrinking of the west antarctic ice sheet.
I didn't see anybody claiming that there were no papers pertaining to geothermal activity. You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, unless you want to make an instant enemy. That's not ethical.
I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.
I don't disagree.
And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.
Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears. The framing of this as if the documents reveal some sort of 'scandal' is a bit troubling.
Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?
So what is the cause of the rest of the melting?
Is there a paper that meets the criteria - or were you planning to keep posting articles on glacial mobility?
That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself,
That's right.
I'll help GP a bit and show you one. [pnas.org]
Did you link to the right article? The article you linked makes no mention of geothermal effects being responsible for the shrinking of the west antarctic ice sheet.
I guess you weren't as helpful as you initially hoped?
Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
Is it melting due to geothermal effects? Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
You understand how your assertions are your responsibility to prove - right?
I think "rock" is synonymous with boring.
I daresay that geologists will disagree with you. So clearly, "boring" is not a scientific measure, it lacks objectivity.
Also regardless of that Mimas could hardly be considered a 'rock'. It's made of rock (well, mostly), but look at the thing: http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/s...
I'd understand if TS said: considered a lower priority compared to the other bizarre and wonderful things in orbit around Saturn. That's believable given the level of freaky associated with some of the other satellites. But nothing about Mimas says 'boring'. As for scientifically boring I don't think that is a thing.
When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.
You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.
And then sometime in the future converted by the addition of extra technology to convert CO2 to something else - thus making the technology CO2 neutral.
When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.
You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.
In short, by introducing process B, you haven't avoided converting process A, you HAVE converted process A.
Your entire strategy relies on converting to carbon neutral processes.
Sorry, should have mentioned it earlier.
Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.
More hallucinations from you.
When you said Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical. you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.
You may not have directly said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.
Should have mentioned that earlier - my bad :-)
No conversion of machines required. Existing machines keep working unchanged to generate power, manufacture goods, etc.
Sure. Except for the ones you've already said will be replaced. I.e the ones that generate CO2. Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.
New machines do reverse conversion.
Of course, as you've already said attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive. So you would not continue to employ CO2 emitting generation technologies and then try and convert that CO2 to some other compound. That would be unbelievably moronic.
Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.