Comment Re:Solar isn't ready (Score 1) 160
I can't help but wonder when this will collide with "Smart Growth" which is a push in many communities to cram more people into smaller areas surrounded by open space as an alternative to urban sprawl.
I can't help but wonder when this will collide with "Smart Growth" which is a push in many communities to cram more people into smaller areas surrounded by open space as an alternative to urban sprawl.
Well put.
"Natural" climate change tends to be very slow, what we are experiencing now isn't.
We actually don't know that. Once you start talking about times much older than modern records you're dealing with things like ice cores which cannot generally be dated very precisely. What we do know is that there have been many long periods of relative stability followed by rapid changes. As rapid as today? We really don't know.
What made the "hockey stick" graph interesting was NOT that it showed that temperatures hadn't risen recently but that those very real increases didn't show up in the tree ring data and therefore we cannot use the same tree ring data to show that it wasn't as warm or warmer fairly recently.
If the predictions of AGW come true then all life on earth is doomed.
What predictions? The IPCC report said that the most likely scenario was around 2 degrees over the next 100 years.
In short, if the AGW theory is true, and our fossil fuels don't run out, then all human and mammalian life on this planet is doomed. It's just a matter of time.
Well, that's true regardless of AGW.
You prefer tyranny and murder to rational discussion and I have nothing more to say to you on the matter. From your earlier post
I call on my government and the government of all nations and peoples to use the powers granted to them during war time to neutralize these and other denialists who represent and clear and present danger to the United States of America, the U.K. and all other nations and people, using whatever means is necessary.
The IPCC does not predict "a couple of degrees," in the sense that 2.0C is the upper boundary. That's about a midline case.
Yes, that was what our best scientists think is the most likely scenario. If you're going to claim a scientific basis for your argument then that's the one you've got to go with. The IPCC also listed little or no change as a possibility but you wouldn't think it reasonable for me to base my argument on that right?
>> "Humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 going into the atmosphere."
That's true. But we're responsible for basically all of the change in CO2 concentrations over the last hundred years....
Yes, I'm well aware of all of that.
We keep using China as an excuse for ignoring our own responsibilities, even though they only emit about a quarter what we do on a per-capita basis.
What possible logic suggests that CO2 levels are more effected by per-capita output than total output? Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the U.S. instituted a 90% tax on the top 10 CO2 producing industries. The result would be that those industries would move to countries without such taxes and the production of CO2 would continue. It could be China but it could also be just about anywhere else too. All it takes is a handful of cheaters to ruin the whole plan. The only thing that would change for the U.S. is that we'd be poorer and less able to cope with the results.
Second, your projections assume that alternative energy technology will remain at its current cost. That simply will not happen. The cost of photovoltaics has been dropping by 50% every six years pretty much since the things were invented. It's a veritable Moore's Law of solar power, and it hasn't shown any sign of slowing. So within ten years, it's very likely that the cheapest way to add new energy to the grid will be with solar power.
If you're right (and I think you are) then we would be best off waiting until that happens.
Right now, the cheapest form of energy isn't coal or natural gas: it's energy efficiency
That is certainly true in some cases but there are so many subsidies and tax breaks and regulations on all sides it's really hard to be sure what the true cost of anything actually is. What I am pretty sure of is that current policies that take dollars from the poor via fees added on to their electric bill and transfer them to the rich in order to subsidise solar panels are probably counter-productive. The free market, for all it's faults, is generally better at math than Congress.
It sounds like you'd be right at home in North Korea.
My approach is to do what needs to be done to prosecute criminals and secure the continuance of civilization.
That's been the excuse for every dictator ever. I for one would rather deal with AGW than live under your iron fist.
The post I quoted was attempting to paint the sceptics as businessmen concerned only for profits. I'm pointing out that regular every day people are going to be asked to make extraordinary sacrifices and thus have a right to demand extraordinary evidence, not just that AGW is real but that their sacrifices will do some good.
No, I asked you where you got the idea that "If we continue, we're all fucked". Acording to the IPCC we're talking about a couple of degrees and a few inches of sea level rise over the next 100 years. What we know is that humans are only responsible for a small fraction of the CO2 going into the atmosphere and America is only responsible for a fraction of that (on track for 1-10% by 2050) so to make even a measurable difference we'd basically have to completely eliminate GHG. We also know that with current technology, alternative energy sources are something like 2-3x as expensive as what we're using and doubling energy costs would completely cripple our economy which is heavily dependent on mechanisation. Real people would certainly be unable to feed their families, pay their mortgages etc. Real social and political instability would result in real death.
Last I heard it was 97% of the "most frequently published climate scientists". Not sure if that makes it more or less credible.
In this very thread someone from YOUR side suggested murdering anyone who questions any part of climate change or the proposed solutions. Others have called us Nazis and Stalinist etc. Face it there's plenty of irrationality to go around.
So you call anyone who disagrees with you Nazis and suggest that they should be murdered. Are you really surprised that there is some resistance to your approach?
You're no different than fucking Joseph Stalin dictating how the study of genetic shall be conducted.
Thank you for proving his point that trying to have a rational discussion about some small sub-part of glob...err climate change results in insults rather than logic from the other side.
Let's keep in mind that the deniers don't even want mention of the possibility that we humans just might be making a real mess of the eco system that we rely upon to exist. That might cut into profits.
One person's profits is another person's next meal. For such a person it's not unreasonable to be sceptical.
Credit ... is the only enduring testimonial to man's confidence in man. -- James Blish
