Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

Third Day and "healthy debate" are not things I generally associate with each other.

[fryewe]

Dogbert: “You can’t save the earth unless you’re willing to make other people sacrifice.”

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by peghall

Unlikely that today's predictions will turn out to be any more accurate than these were:

7 Predictions From Original Earth Day in 1970

I had to laugh, reading this and seeing you specialize in marine sanitation. Perfect.
Here is a better source of news...
Weekly World News | The World's Only Reliable News

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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

"Authoritative?" Towards what?? That many in the pro-AGW movement see it as a vehicle for achieving a long-desired social justice agenda? Hardly a secret, nor are comments like this from all quarters surprising anymore. Is it your impression that this is some sort of "outing?"

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.

Actually, I quickly forget any particular govt. official's exact words, but I do tend to remember the different facets of various politically-inspired movements. Are you suggesting that a social justice component to the AGW movement is something new here?

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.

OK, whatever. Your analysis wasn't unfair, only beside the point. Although I wouldn't characterize the second quote as having only a "whiff" of social justice. But why are you so earnestly trying to back away from this faction of the pro-AGW cause? I think for many reasons it has been a terrible disservice to the credibility of the science and the scientists, but you can disassociate or associate with it as you wish. But that won't make it go away! I agree that your "sticking to the science" mantra is the better way to go.

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

Again, you can parse the quotes, or you can try and better understand the overall point that was being made. The politicization of CC by the left has polarized views on the science, and discredited it to boot. This is just a statement of fact that has been demonstrated in this thread time & again, and is not intended as an opinion on the merits of either the politics or the science. I'm also not suggesting the other side hasn't also discredited itself. But this is hardly the point.

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.

Obama not very 'left'? Keep working on cracking that shell of yours. Nobody's talking about "faking" a global crisis, perpetrating a ruse, or one of your many imagined conspiracies. Obama has been quite open about his redistribution agenda, about the need for the U.S. to make amends for the sins of colonialism, and how the West has been unjustly enriched off the backs of the developed world and thus needs to recompense. Do you read the newspapers occasionally?

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

Trust your govt. The people who work there are better, smarter, more moral human beings, and of course know what's best for you.

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.

Having worked in govt., that's exactly why I'm generally resistant to conspiracy theories. But Machiavellian doesn't have all that much to do with large factions that have been openly trying to use CC science to advance a social justice agenda. If you oppose this approach, then it's probably more effective to advocate against it than simply ignore or deny it. It shouldn't lessen your clubhouse creds, but then conformity is a powerful impulse, and there are many on your side that are apparently intolerant of any level of dissent.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Authoritative?" Towards what??

In and of itself. There's no online confirmation or transcript of the original Calgary Herald conversation that contains this quote; in fact this quote comes secondhand from a Fin Post opinion piece which claims it was part of that conversation.

Given the way it's been distorted and disseminated, I guess that a little thing like verification hasn't concerned anyone.

If people will do that with quotes, imagine what they'd do with data...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In and of itself. There's no online confirmation or transcript of the original Calgary Herald conversation that contains this quote; in fact this quote comes secondhand from a Fin Post opinion piece which claims it was part of that conversation.

Given the way it's been distorted and disseminated, I guess that a little thing like verification hasn't concerned anyone.

If people will do that with quotes, imagine what they'd do with data...

Yes, imagine . . .

Welcome to the real world, L-E.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, imagine . . .

Welcome to the real world, L-E.

Soooo close. We only have to agree on who is doing what and why.

[avb3]

Interesting article about a bladeless wind energy system inspired by sailing, invented by a young engineer in Tunisia.

Wind energy converter inspired by ancient boats | Reuters

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have no concern for humanity and your descendants.

Na...no over the top BS here...sounds a lot like the Earth Day 1970 Predictions...just as foolish and childish.

But that is what the Jihadists do when they can't convert you to their Religion...off with your head.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Third Day and "healthy debate" are not things I generally associate with each other.

Thanks LE...the second reference to me in a few pages...I love it because when you go on the attack after me, it means you have lost the argument and are lashing out...game over.

Happy day....

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Third Day and "healthy debate" are not things I generally associate with each other.

Thanks LE...the second reference to me in a few pages...I love because when you go on the attack after me, it means you have lost the argument and are lashing out.

Happy day....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by avb3

Interesting article about a bladeless wind energy system inspired by sailing, invented by a young engineer in Tunisia.

Wind energy converter inspired by ancient boats | Reuters

That could also scaled to work on a boat.

[TurninTurtle]

Nothing against innovations in harnessing other types of energy.

When those new technologies become economically more practical than feeding my car gasoline I'll be glad to use them.

Just don't force this stuff on people before its actually reliable. Right now some of it is becoming reliable. Some of it takes more fossil fuel to produce the hardware than the energy produced over the life of the device.

And there you have the stupidity of people who claim you have to use the non-fossil-fuel energy systems. IT TOOK MORE FOSSIL FUEL TO MAKE THE HARDWARE THAN WILL BE SAVED OVER THE LIFE OF THE DEVICE.
You actually are making a LARGER "carbon footprint" not a smaller one...

I have a solar power system mounted on a trailer.
It would take 50 years for the appx 20 year life panels to return the energy it took to make the panels.
That does not include the energy used to produce the batteries. (which have already been replaced due to age)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Thanks LE...the second reference to me in a few pages...I love because when you go on the attack after me, it means you have lost the argument and are lashing out.

You haven't been an actual part of this argument, for just about all of it. Don't flatter yourself.

Nonetheless, you have a nice day too.

[Kenomac]

We plan on attending the Annapolis Sailboat Show during October 2016. How many of you plan on attending? Maybe we can start planning on getting together Friday or Saturday evening at a nearby pub for a few beers?

Climate change talk will be off limits.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

We plan on attending the Annapolis Sailboat Show during October 2016. How many of you plan on attending? Maybe we can start planning on getting together Friday or Saturday evening at a nearby pub for a few beers?

Climate change talk will be off limits.

I'm not attending wrong coast however I do think that the climate will be the furthest thing from anyone's mind except possibly how the wind blows.