Lol I think climate change is real and find it sad they did this.  Hell even if it was "fake"  renewable energy is worth it.  Why mine and burn and pay the shitty middle east when you can generate unlimited energy for free.

Lol I think climate change is real and find it sad they did this.  Hell even if it was "fake"  renewable energy is worth it.  Why mine and burn and pay the shitty middle east when you can generate unlimited energy for free.

Not that simple. Take solar for example. It is an extremely dirty industry. It uses lots of rare earth chemicals, and the production process is extremely polluting.

Only maybe hydro electricity, like in Niagra falls, is really clean. But then again, that was a natural falls. For other places you need to dam it up, causing massive environmental problems.

The ironic thing is, the most clean energy is actually nuclear energy, but it must be done right, using fast breeder reactors, not the lousy kinds that are inefficient and create lots of nuclear waste.

What was removed from the White House website was all the assertions about "anthropogenic global warming (AGW)/climate change" as a coming global disaster unless (and probably even if) the economies of the world (e.g. United States) are "transformed" in Obama's vision, which would mean basically a continuation, though more exaggerated, of the destruction of American economic well-being. More than a few people with climate expertise seriously doubt the AGW hypothesis and the data produced in support of that hypothesis (government research grants have been virtually 100% given to researchers who validate the hypothesis), and some suggest that the apparent beginning of a Maunder minimum sunspot activity cycle is much more likely the cause of any planetary climate change.

The idea that there is anything remotely resembling "unlimited energy for free" requires near blindness to the facts of the true costs of "alternative energy" means of production and long term consequences. There's a reason all those "alternatives" are all government subsidized and that the billionaires are NOT rushing to invest and make more billions in any of those technologies. There are more than enough fossil fuel sources (natural gas, coal, and oil from various sources, including shale) to run the U.S. as totally energy independent and self-sufficient if the regulations currently prohibiting their extraction, transportation and refinement were removed.

The problem is that 99% of climate change scientists dont agree, The 97% figure is bullshit and always has been.

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.


The largest problem is that any scientist that uses DATA to speak out is ridiculed and ousted from the science community. The data is screwed with and adjusted to remove data that does not fit the pre determined pattern.

There is wind,  solar via mirrors, thermal which is probably the cleanest.  While we might not have the best renewable energy now the free market will only improve them if there is demand.

An article from just yesterday on several of the "issues" with the Ivanpah thermal plant in the Mojave desert of California: http://www.sbsun.com/article/LG/20170121/NEWS/170129923

Among the salient features:

The behemoth Ivanpah solar power plant built with federal subsidies to combat climate change is using increasing amounts of natural gas, a greenhouse-gas-emitting fuel, state and federal data show.

The most recent numbers from the California Air Resources Board show that in 2015, the plant’s second year of operation, carbon emissions from Ivanpah’s gas use jumped by 48.4 percent to 68,676 metric tons.

That’s more than twice the pollution threshold for power plants or factories in California to be required to participate in the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions.

Federal subsidies: $1.6 billion in loan guarantees and $600 million in federal tax credits. (Why would that be necessary if this means of production were remotely close to cost efficient?)

Quote from: omnigun on January 22, 2017, 04:28:27 PM

There is a coming global disaster in our generation.

What form(s) exactly will that disaster take? Anything like the Ehrlich predicted global disaster that should have overtaken us 15 years ago (and I'm NOT arguing that because one disaster predictor was completely wrong that another one might not be right).

  Face the facts.  The worlds weather is changing. 

Isn't the world's weather always changing? Isn't the climate always changing? Isn't it a matter of how it's changing and how much and when and what will the consequences of those changes be? And then if it could be determined that a "disaster" was truly ahead what and if there could be anything sufficient done by humans to avert it? I think you mean "Face the possibility", to which I would add "Weak evidence and little to no capacity to avert even if true".

There is record breaking heat waves every year.   There are unique storms that occur more often.  The oceans are rising.   Blaming natural occurrences and ignoring the facts aint gonna make it go away.   

So you've ruled out natural climatic oscillations. But why? The Maunder minimum cycles and their effect upon climate are rather clear, for example. I'm not so sure the way you (and others) are counting the "effects" is accurate, nor the reading of a sufficiently long record adequate or precise, not to mention data selectivity.

There is more CO2 in our air than recent history.  Fossil fuels produce CO2.  CO2 is an confirmed greenhouse gas.  Its quite simple that humans are the cause. 

I don't doubt that human activity could be the cause, at least partially, of rising CO2 levels, but what I question is even if that is true, what is the consequence to climate, and even if there is a consequence to climate, how great is it, and even if it is "great", in the real world what can be done about it that would make a difference in the real world? You think China and India are going to sacrifice their entry into the industrialized "middle class" world to stop the oceans from rising a couple of inches?

If the ocean currents that brings warm water north and cool water south are fucked we are all fucked.  The lower ocean is warming and that screws up the currents that literally power most weather on earth. 

Billionaires aint funding renewable energy cause profit is shit.  We are a long way from perfecting it.  While coal and gas is right there and cheap with large profit margins.  Its simple why we need the gov funding this stuff. 

Obviously in a free market setting any industry that had the significant potential for profit in the long haul would be attracting venture capitalists, not begging the government for billions in "guaranteed loans" to subsidize their investments. Not to mention total scams like Obama granting $900 MILLION to an Obama donor to fold up his business before it produced even one single solar panel.

I think ive had this argument before Its a doomed approach.  In the end i guess in 50 years.  I will get my I told you so moment.  Its not worth but i'll get that before I die.  When 90% of scientists agree on something 99.99% of the time they are correct.  Inb4 you believe vaccines cause autism.....

When do you expect to see the first "disastrous" effects? Not until 2067 when it suddenly all comes crashing down cosmically, or will we see a gradual deterioration? What would you predict will be noticeable to any observer by say, 2020 or 2025 or 2030?

I don't really feel like a full argument so I will mainly address your last post.  There are already some effects in 2010-2017 area.  It will not be instant but gradual.  I forsee in 2025 to have even more storms, higher temperatures, sea's etc.  Maybe in 2050 we will see more drastic problems with displaced people.  And climate and weather issues.   Finally in around 2075 i see if literally nothing changes  I see population decline as people starve, wars, etc and the starting fall of the human race.  Me and you probably wont live to see the "doomsday" effects but our kids will.

I don't really feel like a full argument so I will mainly address your last post.  There are already some effects in 2010-2017 area.  It will not be instant but gradual.  I forsee in 2025 to have even more storms, higher temperatures, sea's etc.  Maybe in 2050 we will see more drastic problems with displaced people.  And climate and weather issues.   Finally in around 2075 i see if literally nothing changes  I see population decline as people starve, wars, etc and the starting fall of the human race.  Me and you probably wont live to see the "doomsday" effects but our kids will.

And there is absolutely ZERO scintific data to back any of this up, it's all based on fealings, beliefs and ideas.

You are an example of what climate change, global warming & cooling, and all the other so-called scientific Chicken Littles are like.  You have nothing to back up your predictions like specific models, because the ones that have been used have all proven to be wrong.  So the next thing is predictions of doom and gloom, and the really convincing "but what if I'm right and you're wrong" appeal.  That's simply a scare tactic.  You are scared, so you want everyone else to be just as terrified so we can all pitch in and "do something."  While there can be some benefits to pollution reduction and conservation, it's not the US's job to pay for that globally.  That's all these carbon exchange and carbon footprint fines are for -- wealth redistribution disguised as a solution.

No thank you.

This is probably my biggest gripe with republicans. I think they are mostly wrong on the climate and environmental issues and I am affraid they will end up sacrificing the environment in the name of the free market.

I say this as someone who has switched back and forth. I started out believing all they said about the global warming then I started following conservatives and grew to believe the climate change was bogus. But the more I started examining the arguments and the science the more I realized that conservative objections were often not scientifically based. They kept retreating from their positions but made the same unscientific arguments to catch the attention of skeptics.

On a side note.  I am curious on all you climate change deniers views on evolution and vaccines.

This


Also a quick 4 question thing I thought up while on my work break.

Do you beleive burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the aphmosphere?

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

Do you beleive that co2 is a greenhouse gas?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

Do you beleive in the green house effect?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

Do you believe that humans burning fossil fuels has an effect on earth?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

IF yes answered yes to all of these congrats you probably beleive in climate change.  If you dont plz link stuff disproving said questions.


On a side note.  I am curious on all you climate change deniers views on evolution and vaccines.

I think when someone asks us to write a check or taxes to fund their solutions is when we have to stop and question the validity of their conclusions and the purity of their motivations. 

If you can't stand up to that scrutiny, don't blame us when we tell you to come back when you have some evidence that the solutions will solve anything.

We all live in this world.  If it dies we all die.  Its just like why you pay taxes to fix all the roads/sidewalks, even the ones you may never use.  I advocate trying to change not sticking your head in the ground and pretending nothing is wrong.  We are a capitalist nation at heart of course people will try and make money its part of life.  Doesn't automatically invalidate the cause.  Like ive been saying my view is backed with facts.  I am a scientist at heart,  if you have valid counter facts I do and will listen.  So far almost everything points to climate change existing. Same with vaccines being perfectly safe and good.  And evolution existing.