Did I say a million bucks?
Sorry Bas it was millions ducks.......Send 5 semi trailers.
Never surrender, never retreat. Bravo Noco - the same imperious denier of reality we are used to seeing every day of the week, every week of the year.
Anyone, including you, can find a dozen stories of the emergence of the joint Democratic- Republican Climate Solutions caucus on the net. It is a very creative way of attempting to enable a political consensus on CC in the US.
But you have to be very special Noco to denounce the reporting of this fact by The Guardian as another example of "good old communist paper The Guardian".
Don't worry about finding me with the million bucks mate. I'll send Tiny and Titch around next week to collect it.....
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-congress-idUSKBN16905I
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/can-only-congress-prevent-climate-change
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/14/520022064/a-spark-of-hope-for-climate-change-reality
https://www.fcnl.org/updates/who-is-in-the-bipartisan-climate-solutions-caucus-772
http://www.courierpress.com/story/o...eeds-part-climate-solutions-caucus/100574492/
https://newny23rd.com/2017/03/31/climate-solutions-caucus/
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/st...-caucus-led-south-florida-congressmen-expands
https://www.ncronline.org/social-tags/climate-solutions-caucus
https://www.ncronline.org/social-tags/climate-solutions-caucus
(My bolds)[Joe Romm] told me that some of Hansen’s projections were spot on. So I went back to my office and I re-read Hanson’s testimony. And Joe was correct. So I then I talked to the climate skeptics who had made this argument to me, and it turns out they had done so with full knowledge they were being misleading.
That was an eyeopener ghotib. Very , very thought provoking.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/
(My bolds)
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/
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 ?
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?
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.
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 could almost agree with the first sentence of your post, but would need prior clarification on the "gains".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.
My guess is that disease and pestilence from war will be the far bigger concern in the future.
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.
The problem is because we have had a pause in Global Warming for the past 18 years and 9 months
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?