Did I say a million bucks?
Sorry Bas it was millions ducks.......Send 5 semi trailers.
Resisting Climate Hysteria
- Thread starter Mickel
- Start date
Did I say a million bucks?
Sorry Bas it was millions ducks.......Send 5 semi trailers.
ghotib
THIMKER
- Joined
- 30 July 2004
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reactions
- 88
A sign of your changing mind Noco? You wouldn't be the first: this guy used to write skeptic talking points for a living.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28...ed-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28...ed-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/
(My bolds)
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,583
- Reactions
- 7,462
That was an eyeopener ghotib. Very , very thought provoking.
Tell you what Noco. I'll rip up the chit for a million bucks or a million ducks or whatever if you just check out that story and give it 10 minutes of your time- and then your thoughts on it.
Cheers
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,583
- Reactions
- 7,462
Well I think I have found a new CC guru. Anyway at least someone who seems to have their head around the reality of CC and what is required to effectively address the issue. Check it out.
Climate Ambitions vs. Policy Reality
by Jerry Taylor
On January 28th, I participated in a forum at the Stanford Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis Center to discuss the agreement that came out of Paris last year to address climate change. On the panel with me was President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, along with Matthew Rodriguez, California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection, and Trevor Houser, a partner at the Rhodium Group.
I found myself as something of a skunk at an august garden party. In the midst of a great deal of shared congratulation regarding the COP-21 agreement, I argued that the Paris treaty failed to do much of anything to address the risks of climate change, and there is little reason to think that the endless train of global climate confabs on the horizon will do any better. You can see all of the panel presentations and subsequent conversation here. My presentation (about ten minutes or so) is isolated here.
The massive gulf between what is required if we take IPCC reports seriously (as I do) and what is being delivered in the policy world is important. It explains why small-bore initiatives like clean energy subsidies, tax credits, clean energy deregulation, and energy efficiency mandates (those in place and those envisioned) are utterly inadequate to the task. It explains why crash R&D programs—even if eventually successful—are unlikely to reduce emissions in the time required. It explains why many in the environmental establishment, with their easy-sell clean energy policies and relatively unambitious regulatory initiatives, such as the Clean Power Plan, often strike well-informed conservatives as disingenuous.
Climate Ambitions
Let’s review the challenge we’ve established for ourselves: stopping the growth of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to limit global warming. The UNFCCC at Copenhagen (2009), and again in Paris, rallied around the goal of preventing warming in excess of 2°C over pre-industrial temperatures.
I see no reason to fight that goal.
Warming beyond 2°C puts us in a temperature range we have never before seen in human history. How the climate system will respond is unclear. Will the impacts from warming be linear or nonlinear? Are there temperature-related tipping points that could produce unforeseen abrupt and irreversible catastrophic climate events (see pp. 1114-1119)? We don’t know.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/climate-ambitions-vs-policy-reality/
Climate Ambitions vs. Policy Reality
by Jerry Taylor
On January 28th, I participated in a forum at the Stanford Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis Center to discuss the agreement that came out of Paris last year to address climate change. On the panel with me was President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, along with Matthew Rodriguez, California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection, and Trevor Houser, a partner at the Rhodium Group.
I found myself as something of a skunk at an august garden party. In the midst of a great deal of shared congratulation regarding the COP-21 agreement, I argued that the Paris treaty failed to do much of anything to address the risks of climate change, and there is little reason to think that the endless train of global climate confabs on the horizon will do any better. You can see all of the panel presentations and subsequent conversation here. My presentation (about ten minutes or so) is isolated here.
The massive gulf between what is required if we take IPCC reports seriously (as I do) and what is being delivered in the policy world is important. It explains why small-bore initiatives like clean energy subsidies, tax credits, clean energy deregulation, and energy efficiency mandates (those in place and those envisioned) are utterly inadequate to the task. It explains why crash R&D programs—even if eventually successful—are unlikely to reduce emissions in the time required. It explains why many in the environmental establishment, with their easy-sell clean energy policies and relatively unambitious regulatory initiatives, such as the Clean Power Plan, often strike well-informed conservatives as disingenuous.
Climate Ambitions
Let’s review the challenge we’ve established for ourselves: stopping the growth of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to limit global warming. The UNFCCC at Copenhagen (2009), and again in Paris, rallied around the goal of preventing warming in excess of 2°C over pre-industrial temperatures.
I see no reason to fight that goal.
Warming beyond 2°C puts us in a temperature range we have never before seen in human history. How the climate system will respond is unclear. Will the impacts from warming be linear or nonlinear? Are there temperature-related tipping points that could produce unforeseen abrupt and irreversible catastrophic climate events (see pp. 1114-1119)? We don’t know.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/climate-ambitions-vs-policy-reality/
Geez Bas, it has taken me 2 days to read all that info on Global Warming and I am now convinced we must do something about it.
You have now converted me into becoming a Green Fabian socialist left and dedicated to saving the world.
Now I believe there is something like 10% renewables compared to other sources of power which so far has reduced the Global temperature by .000001 %....So it is now up to you and I to bring that figure down to .00001%....How will we do it together?
We have to demonstrate with more Greenies to get rid of those nasty coal fired power station and make sure we close all the coal mines.......India won't be too happy not being able to provide power to some 100,000,000 people but who cares?.....Who cares about the 16,000 job loses in Queensland?.....What will the unions have to say about it ?......Hey I guess there is always the dole which might add a few million dollars to social welfare.......But who cares?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/six-myths-about-renewable-energy-1379884641
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,583
- Reactions
- 7,462
Interesting Noco. I can't quite grasp why you want to become a Green Socialist Fabian. Doesn';t quite jell with Jerry Taylors story does it ?
I understood Jerry Taylor is an right wing Libertarian. He just happens to acknowledge the evidence around CC and is very concerned out our future if we don't rapidly reduce CO2 emissions. That article from WSJ was good stuff. I think if you take the trouble to analyse the CC information as per Jerry Taylor you'll recognise we have a looooonnng way to go if we are actually going to have an impact on the greenhouse gases we have already emitted and are committed to to releasing.
But hey you knew that didn't you ? And really Jerry's most telling point was recognising just how he had been repeatedly stooged by the CC deniers. Perhaps you might want to check that out as well ?
I understood Jerry Taylor is an right wing Libertarian. He just happens to acknowledge the evidence around CC and is very concerned out our future if we don't rapidly reduce CO2 emissions. That article from WSJ was good stuff. I think if you take the trouble to analyse the CC information as per Jerry Taylor you'll recognise we have a looooonnng way to go if we are actually going to have an impact on the greenhouse gases we have already emitted and are committed to to releasing.
But hey you knew that didn't you ? And really Jerry's most telling point was recognising just how he had been repeatedly stooged by the CC deniers. Perhaps you might want to check that out as well ?
The reason why I want to become a Greenie is because they would concur with everything Jerry Taylor has quoted.......He says he wants to get rid of CO2 but our plant life would not survive without CO2.......Once you get under 150 ppm, plant will not survive....It is currently around 400ppm and plant life is flourishing on it.......This is the thing I cannot understand has why Jerry Taylor in his speech stated we must get rid of CO2.....As of today how much has the Global temperature been reduced with all this renewable energy and the closure of coal fired power stations......Do you really know or do any of the CC scientists know?
How will it affect Jerry Taylor if Trump tears up the Paris agreement which in my mind has not done a great deal anyway.
The major problem I also have right now is my wife is a Global Warming denier and when I told her I was joining the Greens she immediately wants to divorce me.......I have contacted Dorothy Dix for advice and I am awaiting on her suggestions.
The link below is just one of many who are saying Global Warming is a hoax and a scam.......Bas I am so confused as to who is right and who is wrong.
Bas can you tell me how much
You do understand that the worlds consumption of energy continues to rise and that it offsets the gains made by renewables? One wouldn't expect temperatures to be reduced when CO2 released into the atmosphere continues to rise.
Dorothy Dix : Dear Noco, in response to your inquiry, you must take into consideration your age, that you are in your twilight years of your life and to give up 35 years of a loving relationship with your wife would be the greatest mistake of your life....You will one day need your wife far more than you will need the Greens....
From what I have learned, the Green,Fabian socialist left are full of wishy washy false propaganda and will continue to promote this scam and hoax on Man Made Global Warming to fulfill the request of the corrupt UN who are full of Greens.
Stay with your wife and give up any ideas you had of joining these socialist Greens who use the environment as a shadow for their real agenda.
From what I have learned, the Green,Fabian socialist left are full of wishy washy false propaganda and will continue to promote this scam and hoax on Man Made Global Warming to fulfill the request of the corrupt UN who are full of Greens.
Stay with your wife and give up any ideas you had of joining these socialist Greens who use the environment as a shadow for their real agenda.
All I want to know is by how much will the Global temperature be reduced with the increase of renewable energy......Isn't that the crux of the game?......To eliminate CO2 as Jerry Taylor states is not good for our plant life which depends on CO2 to stay alive....We must have CO2 so why eliminate it?
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,583
- Reactions
- 7,462
Gently, gently good Noco. Don't let any of this scary stuff about turning the world into a hothouse with balmy days at the Poles and beaches at Ayers Rock ruin your day. After all we all have to go one day in some way and you really don't want to lose any sleep or your good wife.
I'm assuming of course you don't have any children or grand children or younger friends to be concerned about. And anyway whatever happens later this century and beyond will be their problem won't it ?
Just a last point. Jerry Taylor (and in fact all the libertarian/socialist/ sciencey types who have been hollering about human produced GG emissions) arn't trying to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere. It's just trying to stop us adding to the extra 40% that industrial human activity has injected in the past couple of hundred of years.
I'm assuming of course you don't have any children or grand children or younger friends to be concerned about. And anyway whatever happens later this century and beyond will be their problem won't it ?
Just a last point. Jerry Taylor (and in fact all the libertarian/socialist/ sciencey types who have been hollering about human produced GG emissions) arn't trying to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere. It's just trying to stop us adding to the extra 40% that industrial human activity has injected in the past couple of hundred of years.
Firstly, ASSUME can make an ass out of you and me...So don't assume........For your information I have 3 kids, 5 grand children and 5 great grand children from 2 to 13 years of age.
So by what degree of temperature will Global Warming be reduced by if that 40% increase in CO2 (don't know where you plucked that figure from) is halted...If you listen to Jerry Taylor again, he said he wanted to eliminate CO2.
CO2 can increase to 600 ppm without harm...So why do these knuckle heads want to eliminate this essential plant food......It just does not make sense.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
I could almost agree with the first sentence of your post, but would need prior clarification on the "gains".
As to the last sentence, I am genuinely undecided as to the true temperature effect from elevated CO2 levels, and am also genuinely undecided as to whether or not the rise in CO2 is continuing. I can accept that measures of historical CO2 levels have at times been significantly lower, (and possibly higher at other times!).
I can see from your post, (and the postings of others) you believe these things to be true. However, not everyone happens to share your confidence and certainty in these matters.
Perhaps some more debate about our respective bases for these opposing views with regard to our certainties/doubts, might help shift this debate out of the "rut" in which it seems to have gotten itself stuck.
Last edited:
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
Why is ancient pre modern man days used as an argument to trivialise concerns for our health and well being today? Climate change was probably the reason old species died out and we find ourselves where we are today.
The real questions are :
1) Why it is important to anyone outside of the powerful elite to argue the toss about climate change? I can only assume it's argument for the sake of argument and jousting for many....trolling mainly.
2) Will we evolve or devolve to accommodate any change? My guess is that disease and pestilence from war will be the far bigger concern in the future.
3) Why bother trying to convince dinosaurs they are ill equipped to handle new concepts?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,042
- Reactions
- 12,607
War may result if climate change destroys our ability to grow food and shortages result.
Competition for resources has always been a driver for war, but at the moment the driver seems mainly ideological or religious.
- Joined
- 15 November 2006
- Posts
- 1,206
- Reactions
- 679
In my mind folks who are climate-change deniers are basically in favour of pollution. Why would you actively promote the dirtiest means of producing energy when there are 100 cleaner ways to do it??
What are the benefits of ignoring technological advancement in favour of aggressively clinging to outdated & superseded technology? Old guys who love an argument, I reckon.
Whether or not you believe man is the cause of increased global temperature should really be beside the point. This being the case or not, let's close down power plants which spew black smoke into the atmosphere and pursue the many better alternatives out there.
Solar panels on every home, wind farms, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and gas-fired or nuclear base-load where necessary.
What are the benefits of ignoring technological advancement in favour of aggressively clinging to outdated & superseded technology? Old guys who love an argument, I reckon.
Whether or not you believe man is the cause of increased global temperature should really be beside the point. This being the case or not, let's close down power plants which spew black smoke into the atmosphere and pursue the many better alternatives out there.
Solar panels on every home, wind farms, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and gas-fired or nuclear base-load where necessary.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
That tried to crucify Ralph Nader, but now we all breath suburban air free of those nauseous petrol fumes of the 70's and before, etc.
Back then the malevolent auto industry fought against concerned people's right of health for profit, these days it is industry fighting for belligerent and ambivalent peoples' right of health for profit..... go figure.
Odd people who have lost their way and become cantankerous old fools pining for the good old days of miserable health of early strokes, heart attacks, liver disease and cancers.
Why can't people get into their thick heads that nobody will deny we experience climate change......Climate change has been happening for millions of years.
The problem is because we have had a pause in Global Warming for the past 18 years and 9 months, the alarmists have shifted the goal posts from Global Warming to Climate change...Any with half a brain can follow that one.
Why the alarmist want to reduce the level of carbon dioxide is beyond me......We are currently at around 400 ppm and it is a known fact we can go to 600 ppm without harm to humans.
The problem is because we have had a pause in Global Warming for the past 18 years and 9 months, the alarmists have shifted the goal posts from Global Warming to Climate change...Any with half a brain can follow that one.
Why the alarmist want to reduce the level of carbon dioxide is beyond me......We are currently at around 400 ppm and it is a known fact we can go to 600 ppm without harm to humans.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,042
- Reactions
- 12,607
For us half wits, please back up that statement with evidence.
Similar threads
