Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I never, for one instant, doubted that he installed exactly what he said he did, or that he has told us truths about costs. Nor have I dissed him for installing it. Only the crowing about it, as if it lends his science arguments weight and negates mine. Shall we all show pix of our home, boat, copies of our donation receipts, our cars, utility bills, our voting history...

Irrelevant to this discussion, like his bringing it up in the first place. Pissing contests aren't useful.

Let it go. The mods have already removed one set of exchanges about it.

You said he was being "coy" about it which is a way of trying to demean him and question his credibility on this subject. How is showing us his very large investment in solar power in a discussion about AGW "crowing?" Try owning your words instead of trying to escape them.

If you really feel so strongly about AGW, I would think you'd find it to be extremely relevant that someone right here among us has gone WAY overboard to get his energy in a very "green" way. In other words, he has chosen to "walk the walk" you advocate instead of just "talking the talk." No, it doesn't mean he's necessarily right about everything he says about this subject or is any more of an expert than you or I are, but it does show that his carbon footprint is well below most peoples and he chose to go to great expense to achieve that. You, and others who profess great concern about AGW would have a LOT more credibility if you said little but followed his example in your actions. THEN, you might have better luck at convincing skeptics that you really believe in the urgency that you claim we all should adopt. That is a problem your side has and is probably a big part of the reason why most Americans aren't too concerned about AGW. When those living in our culture who do a lot of talking about AGW continue to live their own lives just about like everyone else does, continuing their XXX large carbon footprints, why should those of us who are skeptical about some science that none of us really understand very well, accept that we should change our ways? If you really want to rally us troops in a war against AGW, you need some leaders who will lead by example rather than lots of armchair generals who want to live comfortably well behind the front lines, making excuses why they need to keep burning copious amounts of fossil fuels while haranguing the rest of us about why WE need to change our ways. Ken, and others who have made the choices he has made are leading by example and you don't seem to like that because his reasons for doing so aren't what you think they should be. This disconnect between actions/words is about as relevant to this discussion as anything can be unless you have another theory why Americans are relatively unconcerned about AGW.

[fryewe]

SCIENTISTS have warned the world is in "volcano season" and there is up to a 10% chance of an eruption soon killing millions of people and devastating the planet.

Experts at the European Science Foundation said volcanoes – especially super-volcanoes like the one at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, which has a caldera measuring 34 by 45 miles (55 by 72 km) - pose more threat to Earth and the survival of humans than asteroids, earthquakes, nuclear war and global warming.

Yellowstone about to blow? 1 in 10 chance super-volcano will 'kill millions' | Science | News | Daily Express

If this is a more pressing issue than global warming, as the scientists state, why is it not a higher priority for the scientific community, the media, governments, and NGOs? Should the precautionary principle be invoked here? It would seem to be a stronger candidate for action under the principle than climate change.

But perhaps because there is no money involved, and the issue hasn't been stirred into the political calculus, there is little to be gained by demanding action on it.

If a caldera does blow, wouldn't the resultant emissions overwhelm the minor effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

You said he was being "coy" about it which is a way of trying to demean him and question his credibility on this subject. How is showing us his very large investment in solar power in a discussion about AGW "crowing?" Try owning your words instead of trying to escape them.

If you really feel so strongly about AGW, I would think you'd find it to be extremely relevant that someone right here among us has gone WAY overboard to get his energy in a very "green" way. In other words, he has chosen to "walk the walk" you advocate instead of just "talking the talk." No, it doesn't mean he's necessarily right about everything he says about this subject or is any more of an expert than you or I are, but it does show that his carbon footprint is well below most peoples and he chose to go to great expense to achieve that.

Let's let the man speak for himself:

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I honestly don't know where some of the solar advocates Extract some of their facts and figures.... Possibly their bums?

We happen to own a 46 panel solar array which was supposedly designed by a highly rated national contractor to power 85 percent of our electrical needs 9 years ago. The total cost $78,000 split between us $38,000 and the People's Republic of Massachusetts $40,000. We were also promised regular checks from some sort of "green scam" organization.

Well... After all the green crony middle men and women get their cuts, last year our annual check totaled a whopping $140. The system produces an average of $300 in electrical savings per month, but even after recently converting the entire home and business over to LED from fluorescent lighting, we still have an average monthly electrical bill of $150. My guess it that on average, our bill would normally be somewhere around $450-$500 even with the LED lighting.

At night and on snowy, rainy or overcast days, the system produces zero or close to zero electricity. Over the past 9.5 years, it has produced a total of 71,000kw hours.

Solar power is a net loser, I would never do it again, nor would I recommend it to anyone. It doesn't deliver what's promised, there're too many greenies with their hands in your pockets, and the financial recovery is way past the system obsolescence and probable expiration date.

When anyone really looks into the mess, you'll find that the biggest advocates rarely own a system themselves... They want others to do it so they can somehow put themselves in the middle financially. This from a real world, ten year experience.

Ken

May I state for the record - it's awesome that Kenomac has installed solar in his home/business. And, yes, I must admit it lends cred to his position on solar.

Since he's volunteered numbers already, i think it's valid to seek clarification. He states $38,000 out of pocket, and it's installed on a business. In my business I write off expenses, I imagine he would too. If someone proclaims "I spent X on solar" but was able to write it down or off against income... it's reasonable to want to know that, especially if someone else is using this info to decide whether they might install solar as well.

When I read his comment, I hear mainly angry consumer, not disappointed environmentalist. Of course concerns about the economics of solar are valid too.

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

You, and others who profess great concern about AGW would have a LOT more credibility if you said little but followed his example in your actions. THEN, you might have better luck at convincing skeptics that you really believe in the urgency that you claim we all should adopt. That is a problem your side has and is probably a big part of the reason why most Americans aren't too concerned about AGW. When those living in our culture who do a lot of talking about AGW continue to live their own lives just about like everyone else does, continuing their XXX large carbon footprints, why should those of us who are skeptical about some science that none of us really understand very well, accept that we should change our ways? If you really want to rally us troops in a war against AGW, you need some leaders who will lead by example rather than lots of armchair generals who want to live comfortably well behind the front lines, making excuses why they need to keep burning copious amounts of fossil fuels while haranguing the rest of us about why WE need to change our ways. Ken, and others who have made the choices he has made are leading by example and you don't seem to like that because his reasons for doing so aren't what you think they should be. This disconnect between actions/words is about as relevant to this discussion as anything can be unless you have another theory why Americans are relatively unconcerned about AGW.

Ummm, I don't think that my having a bigger solar system than Kenomac would make you any less annoyed with me, or one whit more concerned about AGW. Not all of us own commercial buildings, either.

I mentioned how the Canadian public has acted on their concern about CC; you saw how well that was received. . There's no winning, I won't play. Sorry.

...except: Last year I got 100% of my boat battery charging from solar. Any points there?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Yellowstone about to blow? 1 in 10 chance super-volcano will 'kill millions' | Science | News | Daily Express

If this is a more pressing issue than global warming, as the scientists state, why is it not a higher priority for the scientific community, the media, governments, and NGOs? Should the precautionary principle be invoked here? It would seem to be a stronger candidate for action under the principle than climate change.

But perhaps because there is no money involved, and the issue hasn't been stirred into the political calculus, there is little to be gained by demanding action on it.

If a caldera does blow, wouldn't the resultant emissions overwhelm the minor effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

IMO you are correct there is no money to be made and unlike CC there is nothing that we as humans can do about it. Humans know that. However humans can control the amount of pollutants that are released by our actions.
The last time a caldera erupted it almost wiped out the future of the human race.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Yellowstone about to blow? 1 in 10 chance super-volcano will 'kill millions' | Science | News | Daily Express

If this is a more pressing issue than global warming, as the scientists state, why is it not a higher priority for the scientific community, the media, governments, and NGOs? ...
If a caldera does blow, wouldn't the resultant emissions overwhelm the minor effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

It's not possible to prevent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. However, careful management of these hazards can minimise the damage that they cause.
➥ BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Predicting and preparing for volcanoes

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes...
There is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.
➥ Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Never made a claim that I know the uncertainties and complexities better, but that some claims about future climate conditions being made by AGW proponents, and some of the policies that are being proposed by them despite the uncertainties and complexities, are absurd...and that provides germ to skepticism.

Here's the rub fryewe; those of us who are listening to the scientific consensus on rapid climate change view the lack of policy proposals that are promoted by "sceptics" as a the most absurd outcome of all.

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, what am I missing here?

Global Warming:
a) isn't happening
And even if it is happening:
b) isn't caused by humans
c) it is just cyclical (natural variation)
d) isn't significant
e) isn’t harmful (probably beneficial)
f) there’s nothing we can (will) do about it
g) even if we could mitigate cw, it would be too expensive & destructive

Yup ... pretty good summary. No surprised since accepting the scientific consensus means we all have to do something. Sadly, the longer we let the deniers drive policy action (or lack of policy action) the more difficult the necessary actions become. The time for easy and cheap action was decades ago. The longer we dither, the harder and more expensive our choices become.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, what am I missing here?

Global Warming:
a) isn't happening
And even if it is happening:
b) isn't caused by humans
c) it is just cyclical (natural variation)
d) isn't significant
e) isn’t harmful (probably beneficial)
f) there’s nothing we can (will) do about it
g) even if we could mitigate cw, it would be too expensive & destructive

It seems like what you're missing is that the claimed 97% or otherwise overwhelming scientific consensus only debunks (a)-(c) on your list. (d)-(g) speak to the impacts, the severity of those impacts, how much of those impacts are also influenced by natural forces beyond our control, and ultimately what sorts of solutions are needed or appropriate given all the uncertainty.

Is this not a fair characterization of the current strength & weakness of the scientific consensus? Not the propaganda from the Heartland Institute, Repub senators, the Koch bros., the oil cos., Frank Luntz, George Bush, corrupt or misguided scientists, or any other bogeymen you, Jack, or L-E believe are leading us astray. Simply the current state of the known scientific consensus, period.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Here's the rub fryewe; those of us who are listening to the scientific consensus on rapid climate change view the lack of policy proposals that are promoted by "sceptics" as a the most absurd outcome of all.

Proposals are not outcomes.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's not possible to prevent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. However, careful management of these hazards can minimise the damage that they cause.

Exactly my point. Where is the hue and cry for action to minimize the damage? There's a raucous noise for action to minimize the effects of CO2.

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes...There is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

Apples and oranges. "Annual...degassing of...volcanoes..." is the average value of CO2 emissions in an average year, and bears little comparison to the effects if the Yellowstone caldera or Valle Grande or similar were to blow. It also ignores the major effect, which is aerosols, whose effect would be opposite the effect of the CO2 emitted, which is relatively small in comparison, as is anthropogenic emissions, which is the point.

So, why, again, does the precautionary principle not apply? Jack? Anyone?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Yep. And this is the money part of that quote...



...which voices what many of us feel, and which makes many of us who are not experts skeptics...

...and since so many claims are absurd and that doesn't seem to disturb the AGW zealots among us, that makes us question the science as well as their motives.

And then, when the zealots accuse the skeptics of being malicious (attempting to get the Federal government to prosecute them under the RICO Act), or accuse them of selling their expertise to the oil lobby (Happer), and continually belittle them and attack their professional qualifications, skeptics become even more skeptical of motives...because that ain't science - it's witch hunting.

And to me, it's also telling that a AGW scientist who has sued a noted pundit for slander because he said he research conclusions were fraudulent about FOUR YEARS AGO, a pundit who has said "okay, let's go to trial and air this out in public" and, following discovery, supplied everything required to the claimant's lawyers, still has not received one item from the claimant as a result of that discovery order even though it is OVER A YEAR OLD...and the court (which was "shopped" to the DC district), is foot dragging on the case. It's also telling that not one person or agency has stood by the AGW scientist in his suit, and a massive number of persons and agencies have filed amicus curiae ( I think that's the right term) briefs in support of the defendant. What's up with that?

So, yeah...he's not an expert...but perhaps neither are many or most who claim to be because the climate system is too complex for our current understanding and methods.

Like Judith Curry, the highly accomplished Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson believes in AGW, but questions the credibility of the mainstream consensus because of it's "tribal," highly conformist nature, and its ostracization of the "heretics" who challenge some of the professed "certainty" of the mainstream views on the severity of the impacts. Unlike Curry, Dyson openly acknowledges he is not an expert in the field of climatology, but given his background is obviously not ignorant of how the planet works.

I assume the court case you are referencing is the one involving Michael Mann vs. the author/columnist Mark Steyn and National Review magazine. Haven't followed the details, but it sounds like a clash between free speech and a free press on the one hand, and scientific work product privilege on the other. I may have that wrong and certainly oversimplified, but I do find the overall trend of AGW adherents trying to attack contrary opinions by suppressing those who are voicing them very disturbing.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's not possible to prevent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. However, careful management of these hazards can minimise the damage that they cause.
➥ BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Predicting and preparing for volcanoes

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes...
There is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.
➥ Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Blue cheese is made with mold....but...does that mean all mold is good?
So the question is simple...is the CO2 released by evil man's activities actually causing Global Warming? So far the CO2 increases do not match the temperature increases...so the jury is still out, despite the MMGWC rants and hype to the contrary.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by fryewe

So, why, again, does the precautionary principle not apply? Jack? Anyone?

anyone...anyone....Bueler....Bueler....

See you can't blame Capitalism for a volcano, but you can blame Capitalism for evil CO2. Really when you boil it all down...blaming Capitalism is really what the entire MMGWC movement is all about. That and Eco-Imperialism on the poor of the world to hold them down. Heck lets even toss in White Liberal Guilt just for fun, since it is behind so much of how the left operates.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Proposals are not outcomes.

Of course they are. A choice not to act, especially when the best advice is to take an action, is certainly a choice that will lead to an outcome.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Of course they are. A choice not to act...is certainly a choice that will lead to an outcome.

Now you are saying something different than before...that choices lead to outcomes.

If choices are made and plans of action implemented, then an outcome is certain. Sometimes, the outcome can even be the one expected. Sometimes, the outcome can be different from the one expected.

And a choice not to act, is also a plan of action, allowing resources to be assigned to other activities, and energies to be expended on more pressing issues.

But proposals are not outcomes.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Now you are saying something different than before...that choices lead to outcomes.

If choices are made and plans of action implemented, then an outcome is certain. Sometimes, the outcome can even be the one expected. Sometimes, the outcome can be different from the one expected.

And a choice not to act, is also a plan of action, allowing resources to be assigned to other activities, and energies to be expended on more pressing issues.

But proposals are not outcomes.

Fine ... you win. Proposals lead to actions (or inaction) which lead to outcomes. Happy?