Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[Kevin_B]

And that’s for the sake of a theory that is much disputed (particularly by meteorologists) and presently appears contrary to the experience of most people. The theory also has tremendous political consequences, and a lot to gain on the part of some very wealthy and powerful people if it’s followed; people who, in no way, act as if they believe it themselves.

Meteorologists study weather, not climate, so their take on the matter is not exactly grounded in experience. Additionally, very, very few meterologists are scientists. A paper from the University of Texas written in 2002 found that less than half of meterologists had a college degree in some atmospheric science, and only 17% of them has graduate degrees. They are basically reporters who just report on the weather, not the news. Why you would expert them to be any more knoledgeable than the average American as to the cause of global climate change is beyond me.

Consensus among actual SCIENTISTS is difficult to measure, but the best attempts to measure it all seem to have something in common.

A 2009 survey of 3146 earth scientists conducted by the University of Illinois showed that 97.4% answered yes to “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?”

A paper in 2010 reviewed publication data for 1372 climatologists and concluded that 97-98% of them support the tenants of ACC.

A paper in 2013 by the environmental science journal “Environmental Research Letters” studied almost 12000 scientific papers. They found 4014 of them discussed the cause of global warming. Guess how many of these papers agreed with the idea that humans are causing global warming? Yup: 97%!

Of course, it’s possible that the authors of these 3 studies all collaborated together to take the results to have them all come out the same. Or, maybe there really is just that high of a consensus. Let me ask you a question. You keep claiming there is no scientific consensus behind global warming. Can you prove it? Can you prove that even as high as, say, 10% of climatologists dispute it? Heck, I’d even accept it if you could prove that 10% of ANY earth scientists dispute it, because you can’t.

So my question is, since you have absolutely no proof that even a significant minority of earth scientists dispute AGW, then why do you continue to believe it?

Theories come and go. Overpopulation, “peak oil”, global cooling, the benefits of communism being some of them, and each and every one had its contingent of people who purported to “prove” their point by ginning up facts and figures to “support” their theories.

Overpopulation is no theory. The earth is finite. It can only hold a finite number of people. If the amount of people keeps increasing, at one point it will become more than the number the earth can hold. It’s mathematically impossible for that not to happen. WHEN it will happen is certainly up to debate, but if you honestly claim that the population of the earth can continually increase forever and always be accommodated on earth, then you just need a math lesson. Any number that keeps increasing becomes infinity. The earth can not hold an infinite number of people. Thus, at one point, overpopulation will occur.

Same for peak oil. Finite amount of oil, constantly using our source. Its literally impossible to keep using oil and not run out, eventually.

Global cooling was only taken seriously by a very small minority of scientists. About the minority, oddly enough, who do not agree with AGW today. Just because they were more successful in getting the media to listen to them does not give even a hint of validity to their research.

And yet, there has not been warming for years,

We know that

there have been warmer periods in history than this,

We know that

higher concentrations of CO2 than this.

We know that, too. I don’t know why you deniers keep bringing up facts that everyone knows and claiming they disprove AGW, as of somehow the author of every single climate paper written in the last 100 years was ignorant to this obvious information.

You might as well say “the sky is blue, therefore man can’t be responsible for global warming!”

Nobody knows for sure what caused any of that, any more than they know for sure what caused catastrophic cooling as in the Younger Dryas period. All kinds of people “prove” their point of view, pro and con.

Says who? Of course we know for sure what caused these phenomenon. Perhaps YOU don’t know, but that can be solved with a little research. Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean no one else does, either. We are very confident in our knowledge about historical climate change and it’s causes and effects. Please speak only for yourself in the future when you talk about what people do or do nor know.

There are people who “prove” that if any space probe lands on Mars and comes back, it will bring with it bacteria that will wipe out human life on earth.

Really? Who has proven this? Who has experimentally proven it in a lab? Who has written a peer reviewed scientific paper on the subject? Please enlighten us, or else stop using the word"prove" so liberally. When you say “prove” you actually mean “claim”. For insurance, you “claimed” there are a lot of scientists who dispute AGW, but gave no evidence. I “proved” that most do agree with it, because I did give evidence.

I tell you what. Find me another scientific theory which was “proven”, was accepted almost unanimously by scientists in its field, and was found to be wrong. You can’t do it. Science is much more precise than you give it credit for.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Also, I’m sure you’re aware that petroleum is a non-renewable resource. We will run out. Probably not any time in the near future, but I think it’s sage to say that our grandchildren will probably have to deal with severely declining supply sometime in their lifetime. So why delay a problem until tomorrow when we can solve it today?

However, you are forgetting, petroleum is a finite resource. Some day, in the next 50-75 years, our supply of oil will begin to decline rapidly. When that happens, the only solution will be the energy price increases you mentioned. So what benefit are you expecting to reap by simply passing the problem off to another generation?

There may be alternatives.

In the late 19th Century, horses were becoming a severe problem. They consumed fully 1/3 of national grain production. Cities were disease-ridden sewers because of them. People could, and some did, project catastrophe because of it. Along came the internal combustion engine and the whole problem went away.

But in 1860, someone could have projected the increase in horses toward the 1890s, predicted catastrophe by the early 20th Century and called for an immediate cutback in the breeding of horses, manufacture or carriages, carts, buggies, wagons, etc in order to head it off. Probably somebody did, and such a person could have easily (even without a computer model) show without doubt that plagues, starvation, etc, would result by, e.g., 1918 otherwise. Of course, by 1918, horses were on the wane anyway.

So, in 1860, should government have heavily taxed horses; perhaps limited the amount of feed grains that could be raised to feed them, perhaps put high taxes or mandated curbs on the manufacture of wagons and buggies, perhaps made it illegal to use leather for harness, decreed that no wagon or buggy could be made to carry more than “X” number of people or pounds?

We would say no, of course not. It would have been terrible, and all for nothing.

And yet today, that’s what we’re saying. “Someday or other, we’re going to run out of oil. We don’t know when, but we know we will. Since there won’t be any alternative energy sources developed by then, and since we’ll still be dependent on the vehicles we have today, we are doomed to paying astronomical sums for the little bit of fuel that will be left someday, and ought to start cutting down on its use today and make it more expensive, even though it’s plentiful and cheap.”

Me, I have more belief in the inventiveness of humankind than to think that way.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There may be alternatives.

In the late 19th Century, horses were becoming a severe problem. They consumed fully 1/3 of national grain production. Cities were disease-ridden sewers because of them. People could, and some did, project catastrophe because of it. Along came the internal combustion engine and the whole problem went away.

But in 1860, someone could have projected the increase in horses toward the 1890s, predicted catastrophe by the early 20th Century and called for an immediate cutback in the breeding of horses, manufacture or carriages, carts, buggies, wagons, etc in order to head it off. Probably somebody did, and such a person could have easily (even without a computer model) show without doubt that plagues, starvation, etc, would result by, e.g., 1918 otherwise. Of course, by 1918, horses were on the wane anyway.

So, in 1860, should government have heavily taxed horses; perhaps limited the amount of feed grains that could be raised to feed them, perhaps put high taxes or mandated curbs on the manufacture of wagons and buggies, perhaps made it illegal to use leather for harness, decreed that no wagon or buggy could be made to carry more than “X” number of people or pounds?

We would say no, of course not. It would have been terrible, and all for nothing.

And yet today, that’s what we’re saying. “Someday or other, we’re going to run out of oil. We don’t know when, but we know we will. Since there won’t be any alternative energy sources developed by then, and since we’ll still be dependent on the vehicles we have today, we are doomed to paying astronomical sums for the little bit of fuel that will be left someday, and ought to start cutting down on its use today and make it more expensive, even though it’s plentiful and cheap.”

Me, I have more belief in the inventiveness of humankind than to think that way.

That’s a great way of putting this whole business in perspective. Thanks! :aok:

 

[lynnvinc]

There may be alternatives…

Me, I have more belief in the inventiveness of humankind than to think that way.

Me too. I’m already driving my Volt on wind-powered (soon to be 1/2 solar-powered) electricity AND saving money hand over fist…not just from the tax rebates (which help level the playing field), but I figure even without them I’d be saving. Over $1000 a year with the Volt, and we’ve conservatively projected $1000 savings with half our electricity solar.

The future is here. Solar has come down substantially and is almost equal to highly polluting sources of energy, and wind is already competitive. And there are many other clean or cleaner tech projects out there.

I’m thinking the Volt technology and purely EV technology could be incorporated into most personal and even some business vehicles, so everyone can enjoy both the savings and the feeling they are doing their part to reduce harms. And there is always the old stand-by of doing an EV conversion oneself, with the help of an EV club - electricauto.org/?page=Chapters.

And plenty of great ideas here: rmi.org/
As Amory Lovins (head of Rocky Mountain Institute) says, man did not stop making stone tools because he ran out of stones…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Meteorologists study weather, not climate, so their take on the matter is not exactly grounded in experience. Additionally, very, very few meterologists are scientists.
A 2009 survey of 3146 earth scientists conducted by the University of Illinois showed that 97.4% answered yes to “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?”

A paper in 2010 reviewed publication data for 1372 climatologists and concluded that 97-98% of them support the tenants of ACC.

Of course, it’s possible that the authors of these 3 studies all collaborated together to take the results to have them all come out the same. Or, maybe there really is just that high of a consensus. Let me ask you a question. You keep claiming there is no scientific consensus behind global warming. Can you prove it? Can you prove that even as high as, say, 10% of climatologists dispute it? Heck, I’d even accept it if you could prove that 10% of ANY earth scientists dispute it, because you can’t.

So my question is, since you have absolutely no proof that even a significant minority of earth scientists dispute AGW, then why do you continue to believe it?

Overpopulation is no theory. The earth is finite. It can only hold a finite number of people. If the amount of people keeps increasing, at one point it will become more than the number the earth can hold. It’s mathematically impossible for that not to happen. WHEN it will happen is certainly up to debate, but if you honestly claim that the population of the earth can continually increase forever and always be accommodated on earth, then you just need a math lesson. Any number that keeps increasing becomes infinity. The earth can not hold an infinite number of people. Thus, at one point, overpopulation will occur.

Same for peak oil. Finite amount of oil, constantly using our source. Its literally impossible to keep using oil and not run out, eventually.

Global cooling was only taken seriously by a very small minority of scientists. About the minority, oddly enough, who do not agree with AGW today. Just because they were more successful in getting the media to listen to them does not give even a hint of validity to their research.

We know that

We know that

We know that, too. I don’t know why you deniers keep bringing up facts that everyone knows and claiming they disprove AGW, as of somehow the author of every single climate paper written in the last 100 years was ignorant to this obvious information.

You might as well say “the sky is blue, therefore man can’t be responsible for global warming!”

Says who? Of course we know for sure what caused these phenomenon. Perhaps YOU don’t know, but that can be solved with a little research. Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean no one else does, either. We are very confident in our knowledge about historical climate change and it’s causes and effects. Please speak only for yourself in the future when you talk about what people do or do nor know.

Really? Who has proven this? Who has experimentally proven it in a lab? Who has written a peer reviewed scientific paper on the subject? Please enlighten us, or else stop using the word"prove" so liberally. When you say “prove” you actually mean “claim”. For insurance, you “claimed” there are a lot of scientists who dispute AGW, but gave no evidence. I “proved” that most do agree with it, because I did give evidence.

I tell you what. Find me another scientific theory which was “proven”, was accepted almost unanimously by scientists in its field, and was found to be wrong. You can’t do it. Science is much more precise than you give it credit for.

“Denier” is nothing but an insult cooked up by those who want to debate by name-calling. I do not call you an “environmentalist nutcase” or a “death culture advocate” or any other insulting term one might apply to a person of your beliefs. I trust that, having now been made aware of this, your mother raised you with sufficient manners to avoid using the term in the future on me or any other person who does not hold your views.

MMGW has not been accepted “almost unanimously” by “scientists in its field”. It is not even a majority view. Thousands hold opposing opinions. And looking at the scientists cited to support the MMGW proposition, they are of every kind of discipline, including meterology. Some, particularly in the advocacy groups, are not of a scientific background at all. One of those was cited earlier. “Climate science” is not a discreet science all its own.

You can airily dismiss meteorologists all you want, but I suspect you have not read the degree requirements for meteorology, particularly for advanced degrees. Even the bachelors’ degree programs are heavy in mathematics, computer science, statistics, physics, climatology, atmospherics, oceanography and others. Does your personal curriculum vitae hold the equivalent? If not, then perhaps you could give more deference to those whose CVs do. And while doing it, can you make a persuasive case for ignoring their studies and opinions in favor of someone whose scientific background is limited to geology or dendrology, as some of the “climate scientists’” are? I’ll see what you come up with.

Many, many people have provided many citations to the opinions of thousands of scientists on this thread already; scientists who do not believe in MMGW or believe in it for reasons other than CO2, or believe in it for a variety of reasons but do not consider it particularly threatening to mankind. If you go back through the posts, you will find plenty of them. It’s tedious and silly to burden readers of this or any similar thread to just endlessly post citations to competing opinions and studies. There are already dozens of them in this thread.

Kindly open the “book” and read it before demanding that someone repeat what’s in it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Me too. I’m already driving my Volt on wind-powered (soon to be 1/2 solar-powered) electricity AND saving money hand over fist…not just from the tax rebates (which help level the playing field), but I figure even without them I’d be saving. Over $1000 a year with the Volt, and we’ve conservatively projected $1000 savings with half our electricity solar.

The future is here. Solar has come down substantially and is almost equal to highly polluting sources of energy, and wind is already competitive. And there are many other clean or cleaner tech projects out there.

I’m thinking the Volt technology and purely EV technology could be incorporated into most personal and even some business vehicles, so everyone can enjoy both the savings and the feeling they are doing their part to reduce harms. And there is always the old stand-by of doing an EV conversion oneself, with the help of an EV club - electricauto.org/?page=Chapters.

And plenty of great ideas here: rmi.org/
As Amory Lovins (head of Rocky Mountain Institute) says, man did not stop making stone tools because he ran out of stones…

As you know, I have no problem at all with the view that saving energy can save money on an individual basis. If one can do it, he/she should go for it. As you know from other posts, I, myself, am an advocate and grower of grass-fed beef. I am also a user of non-energy-derived fertilizers. I would be one of the first to say, for example, that it makes no sense to feed energy-intensive grain products to those animals that don’t really need it. (some do, though)

But in calculating money saved, one should also factor in what it costs others. The Volt, for example, is heavily subsidized, so some of the cost savings are actually expenses imposed on others. The same is true with other alternative sources. That’s one of the reasons some European countries are getting out of the wind and solar subsidizing business. It’s awfully expensive, and even when subsidized, artificially inflates the cost of energy to people without a compelling reason to do that to them.

Undoubtedly human ingenuity will keep human beings in energy sources in the future. I really believe that. But trying to force a particular methodology before it’s even needed is, in my view, simply imposing a wrongful burden on people. Looking back, in the 1970s and 1980s, there were all sorts of subsidies on various alternative energy devices in the face of what then seemed an imminent and permanent fuel shortage. Lots of people bought those devices, and they weren’t cheap. Ultimately, they didn’t work out, and the landfills are surely replete with their artifacts. Some people bought stills and licenses and converted engines for alcohol, only to find later that they couldn’t produce alcohol cheap enough to make it worthwhile. Possibly those stills ended up in the landfills or perhaps they have now been turned to more potable versions of alcohol. Some people eagerly built “earth homes” in places where you could not keep water out of them no matter what you did. (like here) Lots of money got spent. Lots of subsidies were given.

And it was all for nothing.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Me too. I’m already driving my Volt on wind-powered (soon to be 1/2 solar-powered) electricity AND saving money hand over fist…not just from the tax rebates (which help level the playing field), but I figure even without them I’d be saving. Over $1000 a year with the Volt, and we’ve conservatively projected $1000 savings with half our electricity solar.
.

Glad you can afford a Volt. Many can’t. And I don’t drive enough to save $1,000 a year. Even so, It would it would take me over 30 years of $1,000/ year savings to pay for the hefty 40,000.00 minimum list price over the cost of my used Chevy I bought as a repo.

 

[qui_est_ce]

But in calculating money saved, one should also factor in what it costs others. The Volt, for example, is heavily subsidized, so some of the cost savings are actually expenses imposed on others. The same is true with other alternative sources. That’s one of the reasons some European countries are getting out of the wind and solar subsidizing business. It’s awfully expensive, and even when subsidized, artificially inflates the cost of energy to people without a compelling reason to do that to them.
.

As in our tax dollars subsidizing a $40,000.00 car. My tax $$ going to a person who can afford a $40,000.00 car.

I just can’t believe it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As in our tax dollars subsidizing a $40,000.00 car. My tax $$ going to a person who can afford a $40,000.00 car.

I just can’t believe it.

Possibly there are different versions of what it costs to produce a Volt. The highest I have seen is $250,000 per car, but that’s only if the batteries are also obtained from a manufacturer that has received the heftiest subsidies. Apparently, the subsidy can be as little as $50,000 per car.

So, that $40,000 car is actually at least a $90,000 car to a $290,000 car, depending. The buyer pays the $40,000 (actually $32,000 because the buyer gets a tax incentive) and the taxpayer pays the rest.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Possibly there are different versions of what it costs to produce a Volt. The highest I have seen is $250,000 per car, but that’s only if the batteries are also obtained from a manufacturer that has received the heftiest subsidies. Apparently, the subsidy can be as little as $50,000 per car.

So, that $40,000 car is actually at least a $90,000 car to a $290,000 car, depending. The buyer pays the $40,000 (actually $32,000 because the buyer gets a tax incentive) and the taxpayer pays the rest.

Still, it looks like it costs a lot of money to go green. I certainly can’t afford a $32,000.00 car. And I am a fully employed professional.

 

[lcburgundy]

Still, it looks like it costs a lot of money to go green. I certainly can’t afford a $32,000.00 car. And I am a fully employed professional.

Oh, in the green energy vision of the future, the peons are not going to be driving anywhere.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Still, it looks like it costs a lot of money to go green. I certainly can’t afford a $32,000.00 car. And I am a fully employed professional.

They’re mighty expensive. I, myself, only buy used cars because I just can’t see spending as much for a new car as I would have spent for a house not so terribly long ago. I prefer to let the rich people pay the big end of the cost before I get it. But the best deals out there are used pickups. Even used extended cab pickups are cheap, at least around here they are.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh, in the green energy vision of the future, the peons are not going to be driving anywhere.

Might be the plan. Might be the plan. According to some, the peons need to be riding the bus or a bicycle, and if they want to visit their sister in California, they need to take a train that only takes two days to get there.

I remember reading an ad in an old magazine for luxury train service from Chicago to California. Those trains weren’t “high speed” by today’s standards, but they weren’t slow. They ran about 70 mph, and they were through trains. Anyway, one of the attractions was that it only took two days to get there.

But some also want people in suburbs to relocate to the inner city so they can walk to work. I’m not sure what they intend to do with the current residents…maybe move them out to the suburbs?

Lots of planners out there.

 

[lynnvinc]

Still, it looks like it costs a lot of money to go green. I certainly can’t afford a $32,000.00 car. And I am a fully employed professional.

I have students who are buying cars that expensive and more. Big clonker fully loaded SUVs and trucks, etc.

However, we have always bought used cars our entire lives (except one new one in 1976) and never took out a car loan. And we’ve lived within a mile or two of work for over 40 years. And we’ve been saving money $1000s by doing environmentally correct things and more $1000s by living frugally.

It takes decades to go fully green, and we’re not completely there yet. One can start with cheap things and money saving things, then progress to more expensive investments as they become feasible.

Now a couple of years before retirement we could afford a Volt at $32,500 (after rebate) plus some extras and tax, etc. We didn’t need the car loan, but took one out bec we got it for 2% and then used our money to pay off loans on other assets at higher interest rates.

However, one could make an EV conversion…which I would have liked to do.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now a couple of years before retirement we could afford a Volt at $32,500 (after rebate) plus some extras and tax, etc. We didn’t need the car loan, but took one out bec we got it for 2% and then used our money to pay off loans on other assets at higher interest rates.

However, one could make an EV conversion…which I would have liked to do.

I can’t say I blame anyone who buys a Volt, even though taxpayers are paying a lot more of the purchase price than the buyer is. What I blame are the politicians who benefit the well off at the cost of everyone else, and on a technology that really isn’t all that workable for many.

You are retired and live in the Rio Grande Valley. Pretty much an ideal situation for one who doesn’t have to drive very far and gets energy from solar devices. But some of us have to do a lot of driving occupationally; well beyond a Volt’s range. Some of us live in places where solar doesn’t work at all well. Some of us live in places where wind power doesn’t work either. We can’t all be retired in the Rio Grande Valley, but I don’t criticize you for doing so.

On the other hand, I say there is no moral justification for politicians to make life even harder and more expensive for ordinary people who are trying to raise families, only to see their government make it harder and harder to bear, rear and educate children, while simultaneously making it easier and easier to be childless. This administration is profoundly anti-human.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have students who are buying cars that expensive and more. Big clonker fully loaded SUVs and trucks, etc.

When I was a student, I made it a personal rule that I would own nothing that I could not pack into one trunk and one suitcase and load into my superannuated Dodge Dart. If I needed furniture, I would get it from Goodwill, then give it back to them at the end of semester. I always resold my books. That’s not as feasible now as it was then, for a lot of reasons. Even so, and since almost no vehicle survives student years, it’s not the smartest thing in the world for a student to have an expensive car of any kind.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I have students who are buying cars that expensive and more. Big clonker fully loaded SUVs and trucks, etc.

Doesn’t change the fact that a “green” car is way outside my budget.

Now a couple of years before retirement we could afford a Volt at $32,500 (after rebate) plus some extras and tax, etc. We didn’t need the car loan, but took one out bec we got it for 2% and then used our money to pay off loans on other assets at higher interest rates.
.

I am within a few years of my retirement as well. I put every penny I can afford into an IRA. I wish I could put in the max, but oh well. I’m happy for what I have.

Somebody needs to tell Obama that it isn’t “fair” that I subsidize people who are a lot better off than I am.

 

[qui_est_ce]

When I was a student, I made it a personal rule that I would own nothing that I could not pack into one trunk and one suitcase and load into my superannuated Dodge Dart.

HAHA, Dodge Dart. My sister had the SS model (super sport). If you wanted ventilation in them, you just opened a little door under the dash near the floorboard.

If I needed furniture, I would get it from Goodwill, then give it back to them at the end of semester. I always resold my books. That’s not as feasible now as it was then, for a lot of reasons. Even so, and since almost no vehicle survives student years, it’s not the smartest thing in the world for a student to have an expensive car of any kind.

I was lucky enough that my parents paid 100% of my college costs. Unfortunately, I was not able to do that for my daughter. She paid her way 100%. By junior year, she really needed to get a car to get to work. Too bad she had to overpay for a used car, because there is such a dearth of good ones out there. You have to go outside the cut-off year for cash for clunkers, which leaves only really old cars to buy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I was lucky enough that my parents paid 100% of my college costs. Unfortunately, I was not able to do that for my daughter. She paid her way 100%. By junior year, she really needed to get a car to get to work. Too bad she had to overpay for a used car, because there is such a dearth of good ones out there. You have to go outside the cut-off year for cash for clunkers, which leaves only really old cars to buy.

Inflation in education is incredible.

When it comes to bargains for student vehicles, the best deal is still a pickup truck bought in some rural town. But lots of students don’t want to drive a pickup. Some do, though.

 

[JimG]

HAHA, Dodge Dart. My sister had the SS model (super sport). If you wanted ventilation in them, you just opened a little door under the dash near the floorboard.

I loved those little vent doors. Best ventilation system ever!