Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[IdoraKeeper]

It's all about under cutting the values of our conservative brothers. In the end they will be rudderless. Rudderless zombies adrift on the sea. Al Gore will be the leader were of the inquisition.

My apologies. .did I just say that?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by capngeo

Originally Posted by chris95040
We aren't out to get you. We just want you and your pesky outdated American Constitution to get out of the way.
Fixed it for you.....

Hey, trying to make this global and not specifically blame the US... but have at it - how is taking responsibility for the future against the US constitution?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

It's all about under cutting the values of our conservative brothers. In the end they will be rudderless. Rudderless zombies adrift on the sea. Al Gore will be the leader were of the inquisition.

My apologies. .did I just say that?

Well, you said something. The rest of us are just trying to figure out what it was.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you, this is a very important point.

As you point out, we (in the west, mostly) expended large amounts of cheap fossil-fuel energy, and left mountains of waste, to get where we are now. This puts the obligation on us - the most wealthy and technically advanced countries - to moderate our own consumption, and to bear the cost of developing better, cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy, and subsidizing its use when necessary, so that the developing nations do not have to repeat our mistakes.

We owe them a better ladder.

I'm all for working to develop cheaper energy for all, but market forces will inevitably make that continue to happen because whoever develops and patents the process won't be able to spend all the bazillions of $$$ it makes him! We don't need an extra tax or government bureaucracy to get us there, there's plenty of incentive without it. In the mean time, we should do what we can to keep energy as cheap as possible so it becomes affordable even to the poorest among us and the best way to do that is to encourage competition, with as little government interference or incentives pro or con, between all energy sources including nuclear, fossil fuels, solar, renewables, and wind.

The very last thing we need is yet another bureaucracy levying yet another tax, with the bureaucrats involved with collecting this tax, producing no usable product while sucking the vitality out of the worlds economies that are having a hard enough time as it is. I don't disagree that we in the west have benefited disproportionately from cheap energy, but I don't feel like we owe anyone our hard earned $$$ to make up for it. If you disagree with this, how much money did you send to them last year and how did you arrive at an amount that you felt was your fair share?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I'm all for working to develop cheaper energy for all, but market forces will inevitably make that continue to happen because whoever develops and patents the process won't be able to spend all the bazillions of $$$ it makes him! We don't need an extra tax or government bureaucracy to get us there, there's plenty of incentive without it. In the mean time, we should do what we can to keep energy as cheap as possible so it becomes affordable even to the poorest among us and the best way to do that is to encourage competition, with as little government interference or incentives pro or con, between all energy sources including nuclear, fossil fuels, solar, renewables, and wind.

The very last thing we need is yet another bureaucracy levying yet another tax, with the bureaucrats involved with collecting this tax, producing no usable product while sucking the vitality out of the worlds economies that are having a hard enough time as it is. I don't disagree that we in the west have benefited disproportionately from cheap energy, but I don't feel like we owe anyone our hard earned $$$ to make up for it. If you disagree with this, how much money did you send to them last year and how did you arrive at an amount that you felt was your fair share?

I see the cut of your jib, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

I don't disagree that we in the west have benefited disproportionately from cheap energy, but I don't feel like we owe anyone our hard earned $$$ to make up for it.

translation:

I got mine. I acknowledge no obligation for f@#king over the environment and less advanced societies to make my pile.

My only concession: it's ok if you make as big a mess as we have. Don't ask for help. Have fun.

Market forces are expending energy and money to keep you in the dark about the extent of the energy and climate problems, because they can't see further ahead than 5 or 6 quarters.

Legislation, not market forces, forced automakers to make cars safer and more efficient.

So, I'm sorry, government is a necessary player; the interests of the market do not always align with what's best for the country.

whoever develops and patents the process won't be able to spend all the bazillions of $$$ it makes him!



yeah sure. And a rising tide lifts all boats. yadda yadda yadda. Except as a business expert stated, the most gains in corporate profitability over the last 40 years haven't come from innovation (except for a few new fields like Internet) but from efficiencies. Cutting jobs. Offshoring. Shifting costs and risk to the government (remember them?)

It has taken legislation to create the initial stimulus for alternative energy strategies, to create the market for your mystery genius to innovate for. And once he/she does and makes a pile, he/she will just offshore it, dodge taxes and basically park it on the sidelines like the wealthy are doing now, or spending it on political speech, to ensure you have the best government that money can buy.

oops. thread drift. Shall we have an economic theory war in another thread? Make it interesting, cos I may just go out for a walk instead.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Where did you do your post-doc work in climate science, that qualifies you to be the unquestionable arbiter of what constitutes good climate science? $100 says you haven't read a single real paper on the subject; you've just signed onto a well-crafted fuzzy anti-AGW position. And this continued assertion that climate scientists aren't doing real science... Who's arguing from a position of unfounded belief?

For bonus marks, tell us how to 100% prove a theory that's making a prediction about the future. Time machine?

I too am operating from a position of belief:

• from some education and experience, I have faith in the scientific process as the best way to study a problem and gain knowledge, it's the process that's best-equipped to minimise the distorting effects of human frailty, human error, biases, and competing interests. Unlike business, which by design is expected to pursue self-interest above any other considerations.
• I believe that when an undeniable, clear majority of the subject matter experts have done good science to arrive at a set of conclusions and predictions... it may be imperfect, but it's the best we got. Let's refine it, not dismiss it
• I believe that the fact that so much of the public attack on the AGW findings are non-scientific - ad hominem, conspiracies, SOSHULISTS! secret agenda - supports the notion that the science is pretty good, so let's attack the messengers instead.
• [edit- bonus belief] Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

No post doc work and never claimed that any more than anyone else commenting here. But I do know enough about science to understand that real "settled science" involves repeatable experiments with predictable results. For example, the acceleration due to something we can't see, called gravity. If I throw a ball in the air, it will accelerate vertically at a rate of about 32ft/second squared, so by taking this into account, along with it's initial velocity vector and friction and any other forces that may be acting on it, I can predict where it will land as well as how fast it will be traveling when it hits and I will be correct 10 out of 10 times. If the acceleration due to gravity wasn't "settled science" I wouldn't be able to predict that with any consistency. Climate "scientists" keep making claims and predictions that don't even come close to coming true, and formulating models for the future that don't mesh with reality when that future arrives. If it were settled science, they would have had a lot better luck. You say you "believe" and that's fine, but it's not scientific fact you believe in, it's a theory, yet to be proven in a rigorous, scientific, manner.

[Dogfish]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hating on AGW proponents because...Gore ...is such a straw-man. He was rich before he took office, people would happily pay him as much or more today to just do the rubber chicken circuit and drone about nothing.

He was and continues to be a business millionaire. Only SOSHULISTS! would redistribute his wealth. Are you a SOSHULIST!? And, do you really actually know how he manages his energy? Does he run around the mansion leaving all the lights on? Is his Bentley idling for hours in the garage? Did he flush after a pee and leave the seat up?

Optics, sure, but it's such a stupid argument. There's no winning it. he could subsist on dandelions and bike to his engagements, you'd fault him because it's a nice bike.

Gore's not perfect and not always correct, but he's undeniably doing something positive for the planet, that's pissing off the status quo.

Maybe it's because of the people lining up to sh!t on anyone wanting to make a difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogfish
This is a great point, and, who are we kidding? Raising the price of fossil fuels will raise the cost of just about everything because in one way or another it’s a main component every product we produce everywhere.

This is a succinct reason for not extracting and burning the stuff as fast as possible, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogfish
A little bit more on efficiency. One of the better essays in this book:

Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation

is by an older conservationist working in California who looks back at all of the achievements he's made and how they've all been completely negated by population growth. It's well thought out, carefully presented, and an absolutely bulletproof argument for why anything else is the wrong issue.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Can't cite it quickly, but Malthusian predictions of inevitable gross overpopulation followed by starvation and dieback have been dampened recently by the observation that as countries acquire the economic security, benefits and trappings of more developed countries, the birth rate drops.

Anyway, whether you think the imminent problem will be overpopulation or pollution/climate damage, the answer is efficiency. In North America, fully 50% of all produced human food is wasted. We subsidize the growth of corn for fuel (dumb).

There's room for improvement, before we just start arming for the Apocalypse.

**

Amazing! I join the global warming thread and end up getting in an argument with another "believer"! This is absolutely my last post here, BTW. Really.

No I'm not a socialist. I'm also not the one telling people to burn less carbon.

How many houses does Al Gore have besides his mansion in Nashville? I'm sure they're all very "green" but it's not a stupid argument. The man is a walking (limo- and private jet-taking?) contradiction.

My real problem with Al Gore, though, and pretty much all of the climate activists is that, in my opinion, they're working towards the wrong goal and will ultimately achieve very little--while distracting us from what should be the real issue and the only real solution to this whole thing going forward.

Since you mentioned Malthus and birth rates, here is another great book:
Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth?

There is so much great information there about what is really happening to the planet and the human race.

No one is calling for the apocalypse, but it's amazing how quickly people assume the worst if you even bring up the topic of population growth. That's because we've all been brainwashed by the people in power--people who's interests throughout time have always been served by a growing population.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I'm all for working to develop cheaper energy for all, but market forces will inevitably make that continue to happen because whoever develops and patents the process won't be able to spend all the bazillions of $$$ it makes him! We don't need an extra tax or government bureaucracy to get us there, there's plenty of incentive without it. In the mean time, we should do what we can to keep energy as cheap as possible so it becomes affordable even to the poorest among us and the best way to do that is to encourage competition, with as little government interference or incentives pro or con, between all energy sources including nuclear, fossil fuels, solar, renewables, and wind.

The very last thing we need is yet another bureaucracy levying yet another tax, with the bureaucrats involved with collecting this tax, producing no usable product while sucking the vitality out of the worlds economies that are having a hard enough time as it is. I don't disagree that we in the west have benefited disproportionately from cheap energy, but I don't feel like we owe anyone our hard earned $$$ to make up for it. If you disagree with this, how much money did you send to them last year and how did you arrive at an amount that you felt was your fair share?

Part of an assessment of British Columbia's carbon tax:

British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008. It isn’t large or onerous; for example, the tax on gasoline is 6.67 cents per litre, and on higher-carbon diesel it’s 7.67 cents. The tax, also covering coal, natural gas and other fuels, has had a big impact. Between 2008 and 2012, per capita consumption of the fuels subject to the carbon tax fell by more than 17 per cent in BC, while rising by 1.5 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to an analysis by Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa. Per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from sources subject to the BC carbon tax fell 10 per cent, while the rest of the country’s per capita emissions from the same sources were down 1.1 per cent. And even as BC’s path of carbon use was diverging from the rest of Canada, its economic performance was not. The best measure of economic growth – per capita gross domestic product – shows almost no difference between BC and the rest of Canada between 2008 and 2011. In fact, BC’s economic growth, even with a carbon tax, slightly outperformed the rest of the country.

What’s more, BC has used the carbon tax to reduce personal and business taxes. For middle-class and upper-middle income people, BC is now the province with the lowest income-tax burden – lower than Alberta.

In other words, BC has delivered big results, without taking radical steps. A tax on carbon nudged millions of British Columbians into making small decisions to figure out how to lower their carbon-tax burden. And all of those small steps have added up. There have been millions of tiny evolutions – not one giant revolution. The entire province didn’t give up cars or capitalism.

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But I do know enough about science to understand that real "settled science" involves repeatable experiments with predictable results.

Of course. Because theories about climate change can be tested like dropping two balls from the Eiffel Tower.

By this logic we should stop wasting money on astronomy and celestial mechanics, cos we can't test theories about the universe, or how stars are formed, or the Big Bang (or lack thereof).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dogfish

No one is calling for the apocalypse, but it's amazing how quickly people assume the worst if you even bring up the topic of population growth. That's because we've all been brainwashed by the people in power--people who's interests throughout time have always been served by a growing population.

Whenever someone brings up population, it's usually in the context of "Population growth is unstoppable and will soon dwarf all other problems. So let's not do anything about anything, if we're not first sterilizing every third person".

Doesn't sound like something that's doable. I'm all for the complete equality and emancipation of women, which includes access to birth control, but some of our current trading partners still think women are chattel. Geez the US hasn't even come to terms with abortion.

Let's focus first on the efficiency side, to see how many people we can sustainably support. Then we'll sterilize'em.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

No post doc work and never claimed that any more than anyone else commenting here. But I do know enough about science to understand that real "settled science" involves repeatable experiments with predictable results. For example, the acceleration due to something we can't see, called gravity. If I throw a ball in the air, it will accelerate vertically at a rate of about 32ft/second squared, so by taking this into account, along with it's initial velocity vector and friction and any other forces that may be acting on it, I can predict where it will land as well as how fast it will be traveling when it hits and I will be correct 10 out of 10 times. If the acceleration due to gravity wasn't "settled science" I wouldn't be able to predict that with any consistency. Climate "scientists" keep making claims and predictions that don't even come close to coming true, and formulating models for the future that don't mesh with reality when that future arrives. If it were settled science, they would have had a lot better luck. You say you "believe" and that's fine, but it's not scientific fact you believe in, it's a theory, yet to be proven in a rigorous, scientific, manner.

To which theory of gravity do you subscribe? Newton? Einstein?

+++++++++++++++++++

So let's create a controlled experiment involving planet A and planet B. Planet A and planet B are identical expect that on planet A the inhabitants are releasing copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere from their energy sources, while the inhabitants of planet B are using energy sources that do not release CO2. Then we could compare the two.

The only problem is that there is no planet B.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I see the cut of your jib, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

I don't disagree that we in the west have benefited disproportionately from cheap energy, but I don't feel like we owe anyone our hard earned $$$ to make up for it.

translation:

I got mine. I acknowledge no obligation for f@#king over the environment and less advanced societies to make my pile.

My only concession: it's ok if you make as big a mess as we have. Don't ask for help. Have fun.

Market forces are expending energy and money to keep you in the dark about the extent of the energy and climate problems, because they can't see further ahead than 5 or 6 quarters.

Legislation, not market forces, forced automakers to make cars safer and more efficient.

So, I'm sorry, government is a necessary player; the interests of the market do not always align with what's best for the country.

whoever develops and patents the process won't be able to spend all the bazillions of $$$ it makes him!



yeah sure. And a rising tide lifts all boats. yadda yadda yadda. Except as a business expert stated, the most gains in corporate profitability over the last 40 years haven't come from innovation (except for a few new fields like Internet) but from efficiencies. Cutting jobs. Offshoring. Shifting costs and risk to the government (remember them?)

It has taken legislation to create the initial stimulus for alternative energy strategies, to create the market for your mystery genius to innovate for. And once he/she does and makes a pile, he/she will just offshore it, dodge taxes and basically park it on the sidelines like the wealthy are doing now, or spending it on political speech, to ensure you have the best government that money can buy.

oops. thread drift. Shall we have an economic theory war in another thread? Make it interesting, cos I may just go out for a walk instead.

Sounds to me that our good buddy Lake-Effect has a case of White Guilt that he's trying to purge away by supporting the MMGW Scam. If you have a guilt issue for the wealth you created give it away, problem solved.

[chris95040]

Sv third day states:

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”


I think this is really the root of your paranoia and distrust of science. You don't understand it. You've stated that science is about 'the facts' and now you are talking about 'scientific proof' and look, I'm not trying to make fun, but this is really compelling evidence that you simply don't know what science is.

There are no 'scientific facts' and no statement is beyond-a-doubt in science. The science is never "settled". THAT IS THE WHOLE ENTIRE POINT OF SCIENCE. Models are developed based on intuition (whatever that is) and observation, and they are only useful and kept around if they help predict stuff. We often know they aren't right (Newtonian mechanics are broken in bizarre scenarios but we still use them all the time because for the kind of **** we are likely to encounter, f=ma is a pretty damned good model.) but they are our best guess at the time.

Sometimes models have a deal of uncertainty, but is it smart to ignore them? If my life depends on a coin toss, and I know tails comes up 51% of the time, I'll guess tails. That's what's known as a 'rational decision'. I think this is an important concept to get your head around to understand why scientific models are useful to us.

The science of climate change will never be 'settled', but the consensus for the moment (for the moment!!!) is that humans really might be contributing and it really could be dangerous. Anyone stating more than that is not a scientist, they are, like you, an evangelist, editorializing and pontificating beyond what simple observation would suggest. And there are quite a few of those on both sides of this debate. But that consensus is enough for me to think 'woah, we better pay attention to this.'

I know I won't change your mind about climate change, I just want to change your mind about the merits of the scientific method before you and your buddies go burn down the library of Alexandria. I'm serious about that- wing nut distrust of science and fiery faith in dogma and invisible sky gods has put humanity in jeopardy before, and set us waaaaay back before, and hearing your fanciful theories about a socialist plot, perpetuated by the whole scientific community, really feels like we are headed that way again.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

By this logic we should stop wasting money on astronomy and celestial mechanics, cos we can't test theories about the universe, or how stars are formed, or the Big Bang (or lack thereof).

Actually perhaps we should increase our spending on astronomy.

I believe that sun spots are calming down as part of the 11 year cycle, all fine so far. However, it would appear there is another cycle which is developing were we have no sun spots for a couple of centuries. The last time this happened it lasted for 350 years and coincided with the river Thames freezing over during the winters. They even had fayres and bonfires on the ice.

Global warming? perhaps or is a little ice age coming?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Global warming? perhaps or is a little ice age coming?

I posted this earlier. I guess you missed it.

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "