J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I’m not a scientist. If the earth is getting warmer and far faster than ever before, why is it happening? What has changed?
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Quite obviously to anyone who is reaping the savings (the few die-hard environmentalists like myself) that is NOT the case. People don’t have the knowledge, they are too zonked into worshiping Mammon to even realize they could have more savings if they would seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Too bad the vast majority miss both the material and spiritual benefits…
L
lynnvinc
Guest
They do no such thing. You are buying into deniatist industry slander
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Have you heard the expression, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”
See this: businessgreen.com/bg/news/2278818/australian-coal-plant-emissions-set-to-spawn-algae-biofuels
**Australian coal plant emissions set to spawn algae biofuels **
See this: businessgreen.com/bg/news/2278818/australian-coal-plant-emissions-set-to-spawn-algae-biofuels
**Australian coal plant emissions set to spawn algae biofuels **
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually there is a “Fee&Dividend” bill in Congress that would put a fee on coal and oil, then give nearly all that money back to the people as a dividend (sort of how they did that tax give back some years ago). That way people could either use that dividend to pay their higher bills OR better yet they could become energy/resource efficient/conservative and really be on the road to prosperity.
The point is “you break it you buy it,” and the pollution we emit that harms and kills people – we should not be griping about paying a little extra for the sake of incentive to reduce our harms.
Everyone is so concerned about the poor, but no one really cares about the children (obviously with such a high abortion rate), and they don’t really even care about the poor – like trying to help they caulk their windows and other things that would save them a whole lot more money than any fee the gov puts on fuel.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So this plan entails making energy more expensive for people to generate money that goes to Washington, which then returns it to the people.
Why not just cut out the middleman and not make energy prices go up at all?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think all realize there has not been demonstrable global warming for about 15 years. I think all would acknowledge that there are reputable scientists who don’t agree with MMGW at all. There are scientists (and I cited one) who believe there is MMGW, but that it’s caused by activities other than fuel burning.
So, yes, it would be worthy of further study. Because the subject is so politicized, there will be a lot of people who want to “please the master” by saying what the master wants to hear and reward. But all the same, it’s a worthy goal. And it’s certainly a worthy goal to find out whether MMGW, if it exists and is attributable to fossil fuels, is not simply part of a “loop” that self-corrects, and to further find out whether some of the more radical predictions have any merit.
The problem is that this administration is pursuing “remedial” measures here and now; measures that will admittedly have a negative effect on people in terms of cost of living and loss of jobs. And it is doing it in the face of contraindicators as well as the certain knowledge that the “remedial” measures will have no effect on MMGW at all.
We also know the politicians most supportive of “remedial” measures gain by doing that, and don’t live as if they believe it themselves.
If ever there was a widely-accepted cause more worthy of skepticism, I don’t know what it is.
S
SamH
Guest
The bold section is what I have issue with. Even if MMGW were a proven fact I would have issue with the steps Obama has taken for the very fact that they do nothing to address the issue while having a very negative effect on the people, the country and economy.
It would be like learning you have cancer and having your foot amputated - even though the cancer isn’t in your foot. Then you justify it by saying “I had to do something” even though the “something” didn’t help anything.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Our government is really good at latching onto any excuse/cause to funnel money to their buddies, whether their buddies provide anything of benefit to the taxpayers or not.
The actual reality of wind power
knoxville.craigslist.org/pol/3746100243.html
The actual reality of wind power
knoxville.craigslist.org/pol/3746100243.html
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
We all share the hope that science will find the evidence to prove or disprove the MMGW premise conclusively… the sooner, the better.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It could happen, I guess. But right now it really seems to be beyond what the science folks are capable of doing. There are a lot of (name removed by moderator)uts into climate and, apparently, lots of feedback loops. There are, as I cited previously, other theories about even what’s causing MMGW, and certainly other theories about GW. The earth’s climate has been warmer than now, and we know that. It has been colder. It has had more CO2 in the atmosphere, and less. Some of the known (name removed by moderator)uts to climate changes (like volcanic eruptions or massive fires like there were in Indonesia a few years back) can’t be reliably predicted.
And, unlike other scientific endeavors, they really can’t “experiment” with climate; supposedly the sine qua non of scientific certitude.
But I guess we’ll see what they come up with when all the political hysteria dies down.
T
ThePuppyTurtle
Guest
You have a source for that? Like an actual scientific consensus?Agreed. And scientist say global warming stopped in 1998.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Bec people would continue to emit pollution and harm people.So this plan entails making energy more expensive for people to generate money that goes to Washington, which then returns it to the people.
But my plan would be simply to end all subsidies and tax-breaks on fossil fuels, and with the money saved from that, perhaps divvy it up among the people, or the poor, so they could have money to pay for the resulting higher fuel prices, or invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation and really be on the road to prosperity. A penny saved is a penny earned
And I have qualms about paying on April 15th for people to go around polluting and harming people, just as I would not want to pay for someone’s abortion, like I don’t care much for paying for unnecessary wars. I just don’t like harming and killing people. But that’s just me.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
They do have ways of “experimenting” in such situations. For one thing, our current climate change is a “natural experiment.” That is we are applying the treatment (emitting GHGs), and we can study the before and after.
They have very sophisticated techniques for studying climate and it is quite scientific, looking at all the known and quantifiable factors, and tweaking their models and understanding as better evidence & theories come forth. They use a “bayesian” approach, which I believe is to study the situation as it exists and factor in all the factors. Then they can artificially “remove” a factor, such as the increased CO2 to see if they would have gotten the same results. What they have found is that it is very unlikely they would have gotten that same results (our current state of the climate) without the enhanced GHGs.
Same way re extreme weather events. They are now (for the past few years) able to say that the increased extreme heatwaves, floods, and droughts around the world is way out some 3 or more standard deviations (less than 1% probability part of the tail) away from what would be normal without global warming.
Now my problem with science is that in striving to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE (making an untrue claim) it is too conservative and reticent, requiring high levels of confidence (usually 95% confidence) before making a claim.
In the case of serious threats to life on earth (or cancer) I prefer to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE (failing to address a true harm); I don’t need 95% confidence, I don’t even need 50% confidence. As a prudent person, I even have home and car insurance, even tho I don’t really expect to use these, but you never know…
So call me a prude, extremely conservative. That’s just me. I don’t gamble with people’s lives. I don’t even like gambling with money. Tho I’ve done it a bit, but once we lost the $50 in Vegas, we called it quits.
The idea of gambling with other people’s lives and property is extremely distasteful to me – like playing Russian roulette, only 19 of the 20 chambers are loaded with bullets.
S
Seachange
Guest
What Obama Did on His Summer Vacation: Kill 760,000 Jobs
Not to mention the fact that the allegedly clean alternatives are not currently available in sufficient capacity to make up for the lost coal generating capacity.
So there will be considerable disruption to the power supply, three quarters of a million more people out of work, what electricity there is will be so expensive that only the rich can afford to buy it and none of it will have any effect whatsoever on global warming which stopped 15 years ago anyway.
Say again why this is a good thing?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
GW did NOT stop 15 years ago, otherwise we’d be back down to 1960s global average temps. You need decades of data, not just 15 years, to tease out whether GW is happening – and that is due to the complexity of the situation, with many factors at play, making the global average temps swing back & forth like a saw blade, only that saw blade is not level, but tilted upward. It took them many many decades to establish AGW was happening, with 1st scientific studies coming in in 1995 at the .05 on the null (95% confidence). You would need some 30 years AND temps to go back to 1960s levels for science to declare AGW is not happening, or has stopped. As it is, we are slated to wipe out a huge portion of human life, and at this point the best we can do it cut our losses.What Obama Did on His Summer Vacation: Kill 760,000 Jobs
Not to mention the fact that the allegedly clean alternatives are not currently available in sufficient capacity to make up for the lost coal generating capacity.
So there will be considerable disruption to the power supply, three quarters of a million more people out of work, what electricity there is will be so expensive that only the rich can afford to buy it and none of it will have any effect whatsoever on global warming which stopped 15 years ago anyway.
Say again why this is a good thing?
There may not be enough capacity for everyone to change to alt energy, etc right now, but whose fault is that? Greedy, selfish, gluttonous people unconcerned about life on earth have not been seeking those solutions over the past 30 or so years as they should have.
However, even if we all were to get on the boat of mitigating AGW now, it would take decades logistically speaking to implement all the solutions. I took my husband and me some 23 years to get where we are – 60% reduction in our 1990 GHG emissions, and there are still many thinks we are planning.
So don’t worry, nothing is going to happen overnight – not a sudden switch to a godly life of reducing one’s harm to humanity, and not a sudden loss of jobs.
For those who lack perspective, ingenuity, and faith in God, I can see why they might be worried. But from my own experience I can tell you there is nothing to worry about, except our own sinfulness and shortcomings.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There are no subsidies on fossil fuels other than fairly ordinary depreciation allowed for all companies of every kind.Bec people would continue to emit pollution and harm people.
But my plan would be simply to end all subsidies and tax-breaks on fossil fuels, and with the money saved from that, perhaps divvy it up among the people, or the poor, so they could have money to pay for the resulting higher fuel prices, or invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation and really be on the road to prosperity. A penny saved is a penny earned
And I have qualms about paying on April 15th for people to go around polluting and harming people, just as I would not want to pay for someone’s abortion, like I don’t care much for paying for unnecessary wars. I just don’t like harming and killing people. But that’s just me.
Now, there is a substantial subsidy on corn ethanol. Since production of corn ethanol requires more fossil-fuel (name removed by moderator)uts than the ethanol outputs, one could call the corn ethanol program a fossil fuel subsidy. Want to end that? I would be in agreement with you if you do.
Be careful what you wish for. If all subsidies of every kind ended, most alternative energy projects would end, and we would be right back to the cheaper fossil fuels entirely.
S
SamH
Guest
Consensus? When did that become part of the scientific method?
How about actual verification through measurement?
The “proof” of global warming was the slight increase from 1980 to 1996 (16 years), but the steady to falling global temperatures from 1997 to 2013 (16 years) is too short of period to read a cycle?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Running computer programs is not “experimentation”. It’s just running programs.They do have ways of “experimenting” in such situations. For one thing, our current climate change is a “natural experiment.” That is we are applying the treatment (emitting GHGs), and we can study the before and after.
They have very sophisticated techniques for studying climate and it is quite scientific, looking at all the known and quantifiable factors, and tweaking their models and understanding as better evidence & theories come forth. They use a “bayesian” approach, which I believe is to study the situation as it exists and factor in all the factors. Then they can artificially “remove” a factor, such as the increased CO2 to see if they would have gotten the same results. What they have found is that it is very unlikely they would have gotten that same results (our current state of the climate) without the enhanced GHGs.
Same way re extreme weather events. They are now (for the past few years) able to say that the increased extreme heatwaves, floods, and droughts around the world is way out some 3 or more standard deviations (less than 1% probability part of the tail) away from what would be normal without global warming.
Now my problem with science is that in striving to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE (making an untrue claim) it is too conservative and reticent, requiring high levels of confidence (usually 95% confidence) before making a claim.
In the case of serious threats to life on earth (or cancer) I prefer to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE (failing to address a true harm); I don’t need 95% confidence, I don’t even need 50% confidence. As a prudent person, I even have home and car insurance, even tho I don’t really expect to use these, but you never know…
So call me a prude, extremely conservative. That’s just me. I don’t gamble with people’s lives. I don’t even like gambling with money. Tho I’ve done it a bit, but once we lost the $50 in Vegas, we called it quits.
Perhaps you should worry about the poor more than you do. When Obama succeeds in making their utility bills “skyrocket” as he has promised, there is not the slightest reason to believe the poor will in any way be relieved of that burden, and given his track record, every reason to disbelieve it. Jobs will be lost as well, and there’s no doubt about that either.
Against those certainties, there are some, but not all, studiers of climate, who predict dire consequences based on entirely theoretical models. Others do not make those projections.
It almost reminds one of a Mengele “experiment”…“Wonder what would happen if I injected “X” ccs of anti-freeze into a person then lowered his body temperature to the freezing point…” sort of thing.
Never fear. There is little danger that I would accuse your approach to this as being conservative.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
There are quite high subsidies for fossil fuels. I found that out from my Republican congressional office some 15 years ago…unless you think Republicans are a bunch of liars
And that is just regular subsidies and tax-breaks. If you factor in military and such support for oil, incl wars that protect our oil interests, the cost of gasoline would probably skyrocket.
Then if you were to internalize all the externalities (harms caused by fossil fuels) and compensate all those harmed on into the future, we’d probably be paying at least $100 per gallon of gasoline and $3 per KWH of electricity generated by coal. Depending on what price you put on a human life.
As they say, “you break it, you buy it (or pay for it).”
- Status