Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No.

Mentioning that there are possible collateral benefits is not the same as saying "we are intending to use climate science to achieve those collateral benefits or social goals". And of course lacking the transcripts we don't know if these original quotes were responses to rhetorical questions from the board like "what if it turns out that AGW isn't a threat?" or "What if the science is phony?"

I wouldn't be making a fuss if the two quotes were being used. They're embarrassing enough. But splicing them like that is clearly a distortion, meant to imply exactly what you're saying.

Which, as far as the Canadian government is concerned, is not true, then or now.

OK, this parsing is getting rather silly but let's go with just the second quote, and give credence to your point about not knowing the question which preceded it:

'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.'

'Nuff said? Yes, if you remember that Delfin's point, along with similar points made countless times in this thread, was not designed to attack the Canadian govt, but to emphasize that the pro-AGW movement includes many who's agenda goes well beyond "sticking to the science," and is designed more towards wealth redistribution and a "social justice" agenda (whatever that means). If you're still jammed up, then ask yourself why a govt. official who is only concerned about CC would describe it as "the greatest chance to bring about justice & equality in the world?"

Does your naiveté also lead you to believe that Pres. Obama is not pursuing a wealth redistribution agenda when he announces that the science behind AGW is "settled" and the "case is closed?" Is this some sort of secret that you only now discovered? Regardless of your own beliefs about CC, why are you & Jack resisting an undisputed fact that even the "climate justice" advocates readily admit? Nobody is saying you necessarily agree with it, so what's the purpose of this little side-show?

So which additional quotes do you & Jack think were taken "out of context" so as to misrepresent the socio-economic agendas behind the AGW movement?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, this parsing is getting rather silly but let's go with just the second quote, and give credence to your point about not knowing the question which preceded it:

'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.'

'Nuff said? Yes, if you remember that Delfin's point, along with similar points made countless times in this thread, was not designed to attack the Canadian govt, but to emphasize that the pro-AGW movement includes many who's agenda goes well beyond "sticking to the science," and is designed more towards wealth redistribution and a "social justice" agenda (whatever that means). If you're still jammed up, then ask yourself why a govt. official who is only concerned about CC would describe it as "the greatest chance to bring about justice & equality in the world?"

Does your naiveté also lead you to believe that Pres. Obama is not pursuing a wealth redistribution agenda when he announces that the science behind AGW is "settled" and the "case is closed?" Is this some sort of secret that you only now discovered? Regardless of your own beliefs about CC, why are you & Jack resisting an undisputed fact that even the "climate justice" advocates readily admit? Nobody is saying you necessarily agree with it, so what's the purpose of this little side-show?

So which additional quotes do you & Jack think were taken "out of context" so as to misrepresent the socio-economic agendas behind the AGW movement?

Why bother?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So you don't agree that 3rd Day should have just grown a pair and dealt with it, like a grownup, instead of gloating about it here?

Your adding it to your bag o'tricks says enough.

No need to worry about Third Day's ability to deal with it as a grown-up. I'm sure he's more than capable, especially since his products speak for themselves. But since you felt the need to ask, his informing us was directly relevant to the discussion about some in the pro-AGW movement attempting to silence what you, Jack and others are apparently convinced are the minor number of 1%/3%/7%/9%/??% of "deniers." My point in response was to ask why there's a need to criminally prosecute, impugn reputation, harass dissenters, and manipulate scientific evidence if the science supporting the pro-AGW is already so "settled."

Now pick up your pants, wipe the tears off your face, and let the grown-ups handle their own affairs.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2105665 My point in response was to ask why there's a need to criminally prosecute, impugn reputation, harass dissenters, and manipulate scientific evidence if the science supporting the pro-AGW is already so "settled."

Now pick up your pants, wipe the tears off your face, and let the grown-ups handle their own affairs. [/QUOTE]

LE and I are Canadians. We have no idea about the workings of your dysfunctional country.

We just turfed a government that silenced scientists and we are moving on. See ya.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are right about idiocy. Only an idiot believes the "wealth distribution"conspiracy theory.

I guess that makes me an idiot.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't know any liberals/greens/progressives who oppose fusion.

The question remains - why hasn't fusion been developed aggressively? I don't think it's as easy to make it feasible as you think it is, else somebody in the world would have got to it already.

There are groups on both sides of the political spectrum that would not like the outcome fusion would produce. From my first hand experience most liberals/greens/progressives don't like fusion. They say it's too hard, too expensive, takes too long, too much reliance on technology, it is nuclear, and so on. Thus they may say they don't oppose fusion but they don't advocate for it either. Likewise there aren't many supporters on the conservative/right mainly because it requires investment and threatens existing mega corporations and possibly capitalism itself.

Fusion would create a virtually limitless power source. E=MC^2 governs the maximum amount of energy and C^2 is a huge number (9E16). A hugely inefficient fusion reaction still releases massive amounts of energy from a single kilogram of fuel. Fusion requires only very simple and abundant fuel sources. Deuterium from seawater and tritium made from neutron bombardment of lithium (also found in seawater or on land) are the main components. There is enough known fuel to last many centuries.

If all nations had fusion technology each could be energy self sufficient assuming no nation prevented access to the high seas. Carbon based fuel usage could be reduced by 80% (air and sea travel may still need dense fuel). Many forms of government and economic systems would be feasible in a fusion powered world. Population levels would no longer be limited by energy availability although food could still be a limiting factor. A world where such massive wealth creation is possible is inconceivable to most politicians and internet pundits.

I know it will not be easy to make fusion work. But ITER is a big step toward the goal of making fusion a viable energy source. ITER's goal is to show that it is possible to get 10X more energy out than required to run it. If they achieve that there will be Nobels handed out for sure.

ITER is a $50 billion (maybe less) project. If the project management team could get a $50 billion commitment from the member countries they could probably have it working by 2025. But as it stands they keep incrementally asking for additional funding and that stretches the time out to probably 2035 and raises the cost another $20 billion. Still that's a small amount compared to what we spend on other forms of alternative energy that will never replace even half of carbon based fuel usage. The US (especially liberals who believe GW is a problem) should be ashamed of the paltry commitment of less than $5B.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have no concern for humanity and your descendants.

Ah yes, the Bill Nye/Michael Moran exchange from youTube. If you don't believe 100% then you don't love your children. Got it.

Originally Posted by jackdale

You, sir, are a pawn.

Maybe, but probably more satisfying than being an unpaid internet propagandist with poor analytical skills.

Originally Posted by Exile

So which additional quotes do you & Jack think were taken "out of context" so as to misrepresent the socio-economic agendas behind the AGW movement?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why bother?

That's exactly what I've been asking myself since you raised it!

Originally Posted by jackdale

LE and I are Canadians. We have no idea about the workings of your dysfunctional country.

That's pretty obvious, although no need to go after one's nationality, even if they are "skeptics." Zealously protected freedom of speech, raucous democracy, economic, ethnic, and cultural diversity, unwieldy election cycles, unparalleled prosperity, the country everyone wants to immigrate to - all makes for a lot of turmoil & nonconformity, no?

We just turfed a government that silenced scientists and we are moving on. See ya.

Not for me to critique someone else's govt. or country. I wish you every success paying for all that renewable energy and those free commuter trains.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It does not include that whole data set which shows long term warming. That meets the classic definition of cherry pick.

As pointed out to you before, and studiously ignored by you, it shows long term warming only because the start point is during a glacial and the end point is during an interglacial.

If you compare "apples with apples" i.e. temperatures throughout the current interglacial, it shows cooling.

Your argument over this is farcical and demonstrates real cherry picking.

[SailOar]

Soil crisis brought about by climate change may hit global food production, claims alarming new research | Independent

The world is facing a soil crisis that could badly hit food production, according to alarming new research.

A 17-year study into the effect of global warming on microbes – the tiny bacteria, fungi and other micro-organisms that determine soil health – reveals them to be far less adaptable to changing conditions than expected. It raises concerns the microbes will not be able to carry out essential functions, such as breaking down leaves and other organic matter in a process which converts them into nitrogen and other nutrients that plants need to grow.

“If the microbial community is not as resilient as we had assumed, then it calls into question the resilience of the overall environment to climate change,” said the report’s author Vanessa Bailey, of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the US.[...]

The study involved swapping soil samples between two sites on a mountainside in 1994 – the higher location had a warmer, drier climate than the one 500 metres below.

Seventeen years later they went back to check on the microbes’ activities, focusing on their rate of respiration – how quickly they convert carbon in the soil to carbon dioxide as they break down the organic matter – to get a broader sense of their ability to adapt to the changing conditions. But they found very little change.

The microbes that had been native to the higher site naturally respired at a faster rate because they were used to greater levels of rainfall and vegetation, or carbon. They continued to respire at a faster rate at their lower elevation – even 17 years later. And the microbes taken from lower down the mountain demonstrated very little change when they were moved uphill, the research found.

The research findings mean that we cannot assume that microbes – and the soil – will respond to climate change in a way that many scientific models had assumed, said the co-author Ben Bond-Lamberty, a soil microbiologist with the Joint Global Change Research Institute.

The study was published in the journal PLOS One.[...]

[Kenomac]

A flawed study right from the beginning, by not taking into account the effects of the change in elevation. Less oxygen and higher levels of nitrogen at the 1500ft higher elevation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

There are groups on both sides of the political spectrum that would not like the outcome fusion would produce. From my first hand experience most liberals/greens/progressives don't like fusion. They say it's too hard, too expensive, takes too long, too much reliance on technology, it is nuclear, and so on. Thus they may say they don't oppose fusion but they don't advocate for it either. Likewise there aren't many supporters on the conservative/right mainly because it requires investment and threatens existing mega corporations and possibly capitalism itself.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for fusion. So far, it's my impression that though progress is being made, fusion is far from being practical yet. As you know, deadlines have been missed, and there are still a number of different approaches being tried.

I suspect that people need to see more promise from one of the various ongoing tests before making a larger commitment. (Sound familiar?)

It will happen, I believe.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

No need to worry about Third Day's ability to deal with it as a grown-up. I'm sure he's more than capable, especially since his products speak for themselves. But since you felt the need to ask, his informing us was directly relevant to the discussion about some in the pro-AGW movement attempting to silence what you, Jack and others are apparently convinced are the minor number of 1%/3%/7%/9%/??% of "deniers." My point in response was to ask why there's a need to criminally prosecute, impugn reputation, harass dissenters, and manipulate scientific evidence if the science supporting the pro-AGW is already so "settled."

Now pick up your pants, wipe the tears off your face, and let the grown-ups handle their own affairs.

Oh great. Now we'll get you and others raising the spectre of the "anonymous 3D PMer" at regular intervals, alongside your solar-panel pissing contest.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I appreciate your enthusiasm for fusion. So far, it's my impression that though progress is being made, fusion is far from being practical yet. As you know, deadlines have been missed, and there are still a number of different approaches being tried.

I suspect that people need to see more promise from one of the various ongoing tests before making a larger commitment. (Sound familiar?)

It will happen, I believe.

Deadlines aren't compatible with such a complex development. The more we learn the more accurately we can size the problem. Also, the US has traded away all the complex systems it originally agreed to shoulder. Now countries like South Korea and India are doing a lot more of the difficult engineering. The people actually working on it believe it will work. I think you should believe them too. Isn't that a tenant of the GW argument.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh great. Now we'll get you and others raising the spectre of the "anonymous 3D PMer" at regular intervals, alongside your solar-panel pissing contest.

It's only the first few steps after cracking the shell that are scary, L-E. Once you adjust to the rough & tumble of healthy debate it's rewards may reduce your lengthy list of grievances. Sorta doubt Third Day gave the little charade more than a passing thought, just like most pay little attention to the rants & whines of those lofty, self-important few from who feel compelled to instruct the rest of us on how we should live.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, this parsing is getting rather silly but let's go with just the second quote, and give credence to your point about not knowing the question which preceded it:

'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.'

'Nuff said?

Absent the full context, and some idea of why the editorial addition of [provides] is justified... it's not exactly authoritative, is it?

Yet the bastardized version is a permanent, ubiquitous, unquestioned part of your mythology now. Like Climategate, endless repetition is apparently sufficient to keep these zombie 'facts' alive, no matter how tenuous the source or strong the counter-claims are.

I agree that the second quote, if accurate, has the whiff of "social justice" about it. But by itself, it's pretty tepid compared to the distorted version.

So which additional quotes do you & Jack think were taken "out of context" so as to misrepresent the socio-economic agendas behind the AGW movement?

Having sussed that distortion so easily, I'll bet... quite a few. You guys sure mangled Edenhofer, for starters

Does your naiveté also lead you to believe that Pres. Obama is not pursuing a wealth redistribution agenda when he announces that the science behind AGW is "settled" and the "case is closed?"

Um, yes. It's not fathomable to me how the outgoing leader of the world's most powerful country, who's not actually very 'left' from where I and most of the world sit, would want to fake a global crisis, particularly one that has no direct benefit for the US. Much less how the rest of the free world is going along with the ruse.

I kind of suspect that these governments have access to more and better information than we do, and have people reviewing it carefully.

Naive, I know. But as you yourself said, governments are slow, inefficient and stupid. Hard to see them as being machiavellian schemers at the same time.