Can't take much more of this global warming

[cburger]

[QUOTE=Blue Crab;1434872]

Heck, some of our loudest shouters can't bother with spell check. I don't think these folks realize how much an argument is diminished by lazy scholarship. I note with some amusement how often, in their haste to post, a member OBVIOUSLY doesn't bother to proof read their post. Tsk tsk.

Ernest Hemingway was a lousy speller, terrible punctuation, poor sentence structure, relied on his editors heavily and all this was good enough to get him the Nobel Prize for literature.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And against this backdrop of strum and drang is ...$1bn per DAY we are spending to fight this windmill

Originally Posted by Delfin

What we got for $50 billion in 'green' stimulus - Oct. 3, 2012

50 times that amount in the U.S. alone on circle the drain green energy projects that contribute nothing to anything other to the pockets of MMGW advocates. So on your theory, we now have the explanation for why support of MMGW exists - it's profitable, 50 times more so than opposing it.

Actually of course, it is far more profitable than that, with an average of $1,000,000,000 a DAY spent on reducing an atmospheric gas now shown to have very little impact on climate.

From your link:
Over 770,000 homes weatherized. A doubling of energy from wind and solar. Cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.

... as well as high speed rail and smart meters,

... this is bad spending?

"circle the drain green energy projects" - list them.

"$1,000,000,000 a DAY" - cite?

As per the article, this is $50B in STIMULUS spending. It was going to be spent anyway. Why not in R&D, pollution abatement and efficiency/conservation measures?

(If you have a problem with the stimulus, don't blame the greenies, they didn't hole the economic boat)

Also, there are 1001 other reasons to undertake those upgrades besides concerns over AGW. Many could be termed investments that will reduce costs going forward. You're not much for progress, are you?

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The USA Has sent 16B combating Global Warming outside of the USA

Break it down. On what was it spent?

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

1. If MMGW was real then the followers of the religion would be changing THEIR lives and rooting for a nuke plant in every town. The are not on both account. Jackdale may be a true believer, but he still heats his house and drives his car that is killing his grandkids.

2. If MMGW was real, there is nothing we can do about it now anyway

3. Why is CHANGE of the planet BAD?

1. entirely bogus argument. Bill Gates advocates for disease eradication in Africa. Does he have to starve and get sick to be credible?

2. A myth of the deniers. Suggest that the solution is impossible, then say any efforts are fruitless. There's more challenges and opportunities to our future needs than just hanging everything on CO2.

3. If change is GOOD, why do you oppose it?

Originally Posted by Delfin

...serious scientists are assessing why with increasing CO2 we have no warming, and are reaching the conclusion that while no doubt mankind has some effect on climate, it is a gnat fart in a hurricane compared to natural causes. And an increasing number of scientists are now modeling increases in average global temperatures in the less than 2 degrees C range, which would be entirely beneficial.

So if MIT thinks it not worth the cost to fight what they accept as 6 degrees C warming, how much should we spend fighting a beneficial 2 degrees?

... That's an argument I can respect. Again, though, let's parse all the $B you identify as being "wasted". The majority of that money is going to sensible stuff, as you already identified, like insulation upgrades, pollution clean-up, renewable energy R&D. The amount of spending aimed solely at reducing CO2 is near zero, cos it's very hard to recapture CO2.

Originally Posted by Delfin

At some point, one has to realize that debating with MMGW campaigners is like debating with flat earthers. The good news is that the fraud that is MMGW will be definitively revealed for what it is over the next few years....So unlike so many tough scientific questions, this one won't be hard to sort out.

...and except for the billions wasted, we can all have a good laugh at yet another failed leftist agenda item.

Nice attempt at a pivot - science = religion, status quo = science

As you point out, time will tell. Revised predictions will come from the same body of science you currently demonize. If the revised "consensus" supports your "cooling" assertion, you will of course embrace it; if the warming trend becomes apparent, you will continue to demonize them.

* * *

Back to the money - people have thrown some numbers around that are being "wasted on MMGW", most without citation; when it is supported, it's clear that the majority of the spending has gone to useful, beneficial things that are good on their own and not "wasted".

More numbers:
- the fossil fuel industry receives around $600B a year in incentives and tax breaks. Renewable energy - less than $60B in support
- farting around in Iraq and Afghanistan - $1T +
- bailout and stimulus after the 2008 economic collapse: approaching $1T
- US military spending: 1/4 of the total budget

...yeah. Follow the money.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Note to Self:
Don't post on CF after 8PM and a few Jack and Cokes......

Yea, tell me about it. After half a bottle of rum last night I am pretty sure I recommended a pregnant lady look at getting a catamaran!

[Seafrontiersman]

Lake Effect...

Your anti-American bias is showing.

I recognize also that liberals can't stand being proven wrong and this makes them vicious....using words. BTW: the US is not a giant conspiracy to keep you an unhappy adolescent.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Seafrontiersman

Lake Effect...

Your anti-American bias is showing.

I recognize also that liberals can't stand being proven wrong and this makes them vicious....using words. BTW: the US is not a giant conspiracy to keep you an unhappy adolescent.

I'm not anti-American. Canada has her dirty fingers in there too. I'm simply fronting some numbers to show how the AGW "waste" argument is misleading.

[capt-couillon]

Good news is, I am off to Deltaville, VA

Bring your woolies....
0600 Mon 12 F
0600 Tues 8 F
0600 Today 12F

Recorded onboard at Powells Marina on Jackson Creek, Deltaville.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

From your link:
Over 770,000 homes weatherized. A doubling of energy from wind and solar. Cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.

... as well as high speed rail and smart meters,

... this is bad spending?

"circle the drain green energy projects" - list them.

"$1,000,000,000 a DAY" - cite?

As per the article, this is $50B in STIMULUS spending. It was going to be spent anyway. Why not in R&D, pollution abatement and efficiency/conservation measures?

(If you have a problem with the stimulus, don't blame the greenies, they didn't hole the economic boat)

Also, there are 1001 other reasons to undertake those upgrades besides concerns over AGW. Many could be termed investments that will reduce costs going forward. You're not much for progress, are you?



Break it down. On what was it spent?



1. entirely bogus argument. Bill Gates advocates for disease eradication in Africa. Does he have to starve and get sick to be credible?

2. A myth of the deniers. Suggest that the solution is impossible, then say any efforts are fruitless. There's more challenges and opportunities to our future needs than just hanging everything on CO2.

3. If change is GOOD, why do you oppose it?



... That's an argument I can respect. Again, though, let's parse all the $B you identify as being "wasted". The majority of that money is going to sensible stuff, as you already identified, like insulation upgrades, pollution clean-up, renewable energy R&D. The amount of spending aimed solely at reducing CO2 is near zero, cos it's very hard to recapture CO2.



Nice attempt at a pivot - science = religion, status quo = science

As you point out, time will tell. Revised predictions will come from the same body of science you currently demonize. If the revised "consensus" supports your "cooling" assertion, you will of course embrace it; if the warming trend becomes apparent, you will continue to demonize them.

* * *

Back to the money - people have thrown some numbers around that are being "wasted on MMGW", most without citation; when it is supported, it's clear that the majority of the spending has gone to useful, beneficial things that are good on their own and not "wasted".

More numbers:
- the fossil fuel industry receives around $600B a year in incentives and tax breaks. Renewable energy - less than $60B in support
- farting around in Iraq and Afghanistan - $1T +
- bailout and stimulus after the 2008 economic collapse: approaching $1T
- US military spending: 1/4 of the total budget

...yeah. Follow the money.

What you call "sensible stuff" to spend money on pretty much sums up why few serious people take the MMGW activists arguments seriously. For the reference on spending on 'fighting global warming' - World Is Spending $1 Billion Per Day To Tackle Global Warming | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

A billion a day. But because you think building windmills that produce squat and have never never land payback periods is 'sensible', none of that counts. Do you imagine the money just disappears? Well, I suppose it does in terms of accomplishing something beneficial for society, but it does land in the pockets of some green technology company before they go bankrupt, or some manufacturer of windmills, or some eco warrior advocacy group fighting energy independence for the U.S. before disappearing.

The rest of your complaints about oil companies working under the same tax code everyone else is and capitalism in general are noted, and provide insight into where your beliefs come from.

Again, the simple reality is that all the models on which this hysteria is based have failed. The atmosphere is not as sensitive to CO2 as some thought. The Middle Ages warming period we now believe was hotter than today, and CO2 was far less, proving that those scientists who thought natural processes that cannot be controlled as Third Day noted are driving what trivial warming there is. And we can hope that the level of warming we have been experiencing will continue since at the present rate it is entirely benign.

You lost the argument, and while I respect the great passion you have invested as a self acknowledged activist tirelessly campaigning for this theory, it has been proven wrong. Fred Hoyle went to his grave refusing to abandon what once was the scientific consensus on a stead state universe, and so made a pretty sad and irrelevant spectacle of himself at the end. So my advice, get over it. You'll be happier.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Yea, tell me about it. After half a bottle of rum last night I am pretty sure I recommended a pregnant lady look at getting a catamaran!

Yes, that was right before you posted that picture of yourself in the tutu, claiming you were one of the original members of the band YMCA.....

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by cburger

... Ernest Hemingway was a lousy speller, terrible punctuation, poor sentence structure, relied on his editors heavily and all this was good enough to get him the Nobel Prize for literature.

i here you cap

note bald tex

e e cummings did ok 2

maybe its jus me butt bean a noble piece recipent dont mein dat much

Peace, bro ... the editorial help is at one's fingertips online. I had to retype most of the above so the program would let me spell things incorrectly. We're no longer prisoners of whatever crappy education we experienced.

Things don't always have to sink to the lowest common denominator, amirite?

I'm a Papa reader too, with the same literary license: Hemmingway wrote in full flowing, flowery verbiage like many writers, full of adjectives and fury adverbs. Once the editors cut all the crap away, we were left with the stark spare prose we've come to love or hate. The editors should have gotten the prize. It's the old gold v. shaft thing. He wasn't a guy I'd want to have a drink with even if he were buying. And it didn't end well for him.

Amirite?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

A billion a day. ...

You lost the argument, ...it has been proven wrong.

(Ask any economist - oil production and consumption is subsidized, especially in the US, and the selling price does not reflect the full life-cycle cost of producing and consuming it. Canada sells oil to the US at BELOW world prices, which amounts to a Canadian subsidy for US oil consumption and independence from Middle East oil. You're welcome.)

If we all agreed today that AGW wasn't a thing and CO2 isn't a problem, what would the world save? Not $1B a day. The majority of that global $1B a day goes to things that need doing for their own sake. Even if you completely remove all global grants, subsidies and feed-in tariffs for alternative energy, you're only saving maybe 10 to 15% of that $1B/day.

(I would suggest that alternative energy will become a dominant industry in the future, so prudent investment today is still reasonable. Emphasis on prudent)

It's too soon to say who has the best model. Ply me with data, I'll listen. It's only the manufactured science/lefty conspiracy stuff that sets me off.

[cburger]

[QUOTE=Blue Crab;1435001] The editors should have gotten the prize. It's the old gold v. shaft thing. He wasn't a guy I'd want to have a drink with even if he were buying. And it didn't end well for him.


Absolutely

[Delfin]

I suspect that as more MMGW campaigners realize they are being laughed at, their numbers will shrink.

[The Garbone]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No it's short for anthropogenic climate change, Dave

Hmm, I thought it was wealth redistribution via complaining about the weather.

[bobofthenorth]

This may end up being longish - I apologise in advance if that is the case.

My background - my life - has been agriculture. There's a lot of parallels between the AGW debate and the GMO debate. In both cases the science is fairly straightforward but the religious fervour attached to the debate has little to do with the science and everything to do with socio-political viewpoints.

Mark Lynas has recently made a name for himself in the GMO debate because he has very publicly switched sides. His background was as a Greenpeace activist who advocated and participated in violent destruction of GMO crops. Now he is an equally fervent (absent the violence) advocate of the science behind GMO crops. The honest members of the agricultural community know that GMO crops are essential to the survival of our species. The science is clear. The only way to oppose GMO crops is through an anti-business, quasi-religious fervour which parallels the religious argument in favour of AGW.

We had a chance to listen to Mark when he participated in a panel discussion in Saskatoon last summer. After that evening I had to question my own beliefs about AGW, based on some of the comments he made. My thinking at the time was that if he had come to his senses about GMO but retained his belief in AGW then perhaps I should reassess my own thinking. In a nutshell his advocacy for the AGW cause forced me to rethink some of my beliefs because I had gained respect for his position on GMO.

The outcome of that was that I made a fairly intense study of the science behind AGW. At the end of that I came back to where I started which is to say I believe that the globe is warming very slightly over a millennial timescale but that atmospheric CO2 does not explain that warming. The fact that Mark Lynas continues to support the AGW thesis just says to me that he still hasn't completely forsaken the leftist viewpoint that youth tends to start out with.

Ultimately that's what both the AGW and the GMO debates are about - you either support industry and industrial development or you oppose it, based on your political outlook. I don't have any problem with HONEST income redistribution. I don't think we should have people starving in our cities or freezing to death or dying for lack of access to medicine. I also don't believe that any sensible animal will deliberately mess in its own nest. What I don't support is income redistribution for dishonest reasons and that's where I disconnect from the AGW believers.

Back to the topic at hand - its +7C at Newcastle Marine Park. No frost on the dock this morning - but there was a couple of days ago.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Hmm, I thought it was wealth redistribution via complaining about the weather.

Can you identify the person who made the "wealth redistribution" comment and point us to the original source of the entire comment (without editing), providing the context? Please.

Gossip and hearsay are not really relevant to anything, so c3headlines is not appropriate.