• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

#ScienceNotSilence

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Not at all - I thank you for being a part of the conversation, and for trying to understand what is going on. With the 3%, I don't think that they're stupid at all. Dissent is always a part of science, and people can read the same sets of data differently. When 97% agree that the most likely explanation/interpretation is the current paradigm that we have, though, I think that it's something to be considered seriously.

:wink: The purpose here isn't really to convince. It's to connect, explain and provide context so that there's a better understanding of how it works. Your reasons for moving towards renewables/clean energy are as good as any other. The main thing that drove me to start this was the gagging of scientists at government agencies from communicating directly to the public and congress, freezing of funding, culling of data/information related to climate change and attacks on/censoring of facts by the current administration. The public has to get involved. We cannot do this alone.

PS. I hate politics too.

Okay, maybe they aren't necessarily stupid, but their pragmatism falls into the realm of mental instability at the very least. :p
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
My point is the disconnection between studies showing that the climate is changing, and the assertion as objective truth that if we don't do what the sierra club, democrats, green peace et al. wants that it will be the end of the world in the next 100 years.

After Trumps election Donna Brazile (DNC chair at the time) was taking questions from Dem staffers and one sat up and said this:
“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

Educated folks on the left think the world is actually going to end in our lifetimes because of Climate change.

That is patently ridiculous. What we on the right disagree with is hobbling our economy to combat climate change when no one can show us that doing so will have an appreciable impact on the climate.

I thought Miami was supposed to be underwater in 2015?

I'm down for not needlessly polluting, but until folks stop acting like the world is literally ending over this stuff, the debate can't be taken seriously.

OK.. so just to clarify: what you mean is that you have a problem with the rhetoric from the Sierra Club, Democrats, Greenpeace etc. that is based on the research, not with the research per se?

I just want to say that it's not a left/right issue. There will always be extremists on the left, just as there will always be extremists on the right. I'm not going to defend that, it comes with the territory. I also wonder how an "educated"/"uneducated" narrative serves discussion or compromise on policy.

Miami being underwater in 2015? Are you referring to this? Will You be Underwater When Sea Levels Rise? Find Out Here - Curbed Miami
A web app created by professors and students at the FIU School of Journalism and Mass Communications, merging data from the Google Elevation Service with calculations made by scientist Peter Harlem at FIU's GIS Center, shows the potential effects of sea level rise across South Florida in incredible detail. While the data does "not account for erosion, subsidence, or future construction" we are able to see the impacts of a 0-6 foot sea level rise in South Florida in rather incredible detail. So, if sea levels rise by six feet, what survives and what doesn't?

The answer of course is a tad complicated, and everything is also just an estimate. The maps also show the effects at the highest of high tides.
Perhaps it's this one: Predictions Put Some Of South Florida Under Water by 2025 << CBS Miami
Or this one: Why the City of Miami Is Doomed to Drown - Rolling Stone

I don't agree with such sensationalist reporting, but I guess we'll wait and see if the prediction comes true.

Climate change is something that can only be addressed if everyone in the world works together on it. For scale, the US has ~4% of the world's population but is the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally. Without the US and China involved, any changes will be cosmetic.

I don't necessarily see addressing climate change as hobbling the economy. Like [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] said, shifting to renewables/clean energy will open up new economies for the US. In fact, China itself has been shifting towards generation of clean energy itself.

China used to argue that it was unfair for developed countries to lecture as, just as they had in the course of their industrialisation, it had the "right to pollute".

If it had to choose between its economy or its environment, the old orthodoxy used to go, the economy would win every time.
"There are priorities driving Chinese policy makers to move faster than they are used to," says Li Yan, head of climate and energy campaign for Greenpeace East Asia.

"I think that the environmental crisis we're facing right now, especially the air pollution - no-one expected this to be a top political priority four years ago but look at where we are now," she says.

"The issue is shaping energy policy, economic policy and even local agendas in the most polluted regions."

Here, she says, the public simply "cannot bear the air quality the way it is any longer".

China is now the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, particularly in power generation. In fact, the country has seen more than $400bn (£267bn) invested in clean energy in the past 10 years, and is ranked number one in the world in consultancy EY's renewable energy country attractiveness index.

According to Wang Tao, one in every four units of power generated now comes from wind, solar or hydro plants, and a new debate has begun, focusing not on the need to build more renewable energy plants, but on how to best utilise this new and still rapidly growing resource.

"We have to make sure that people have the incentives to continue to invest in these renewables, and also that consumers will be able to know and to choose wisely in terms of what kind of electricity they consume, and also change their behaviour," he says.

And where once everyone spoke about the huge vested interests in China's fossil fuel-powered sectors, many believe the government is starting to take them on.

"In Hubei Province," Li Yan says, "we are observing very bold and firm action to close down the dirtiest fleet of the iron, steel and cement sector, even at the cost of temporary job losses.

"I think that's a painful process, but it's also a demonstration of how important the air pollution agenda is in this region."
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
OK.. so just to clarify: what you mean is that you have a problem with the rhetoric from the Sierra Club, Democrats, Greenpeace etc. that is based on the research, not with the research per se?

I just want to say that it's not a left/right issue. There will always be extremists on the left, just as there will always be extremists on the right. I'm not going to defend that, it comes with the territory. I also wonder how an "educated"/"uneducated" narrative serves discussion or compromise on policy.

Miami being underwater in 2015? Are you referring to this? Will You be Underwater When Sea Levels Rise? Find Out Here - Curbed Miami

Perhaps it's this one: Predictions Put Some Of South Florida Under Water by 2025 << CBS Miami
Or this one: Why the City of Miami Is Doomed to Drown - Rolling Stone

I don't agree with such sensationalist reporting, but I guess we'll wait and see if the prediction comes true.

Climate change is something that can only be addressed if everyone in the world works together on it. For scale, the US has ~4% of the world's population but is the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally. Without the US and China involved, any changes will be cosmetic.

I don't necessarily see addressing climate change as hobbling the economy. Like [mention]Flufflywolf[/mention] said, shifting to renewables/clean energy will open up new economies for the US. In fact, China itself has been shifting towards generation of clean energy itself.

I'm just stoked that now we can work for true energy independence.

It's the climate change policies espoused by the left, and their catastrophic predictions I disagree with. And the fact that if you disagree with those policies you are treated like you are an idiot who doesn't understand science.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Heat and Futility

The thing that stays on my mind about global warming is the fact that even if the US and Europe did everything we could to combat it, what’s to keep China and India from refusing? As economist Robert Samuelson (who is not a climate-change denier) wrote in 2014, “We have no solution,” Excerpt:

No sane government will sacrifice its economy today — by dramatically curtailing fossil-fuel use — for the uncertain benefits of less global warming sometime in the foggy future. (The focus of the U.S. global warming report on the present seems aimed at bridging this gap.)

Worse, almost all the projected increases in global emissions come from poorer countries, half from China alone. By contrast, U.S. emissions (and those of most rich nations) are projected to stay stable over the three decades. Economic growth is slowing; energy efficiency is increasing; and, in Japan and some European countries, populations are declining. Because poor countries understandably won’t abandon their efforts to relieve poverty, any further U.S. emissions cuts would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. This dims their political and environmental appeal.

He’s got a very serious point: how do you convince poor and developing countries to slow down the engine of what is drawing their people out of abject misery? I’m not asking, “Should we ask them to do this?” but posing it as a question of basic politics and human nature. China’s own capital city is all but unlivable because of pollution and smog, and yet still, the Chinese factories and coal-burning plants chug on.

Samuelson says he accepts the dominant scientific view about human-driven global warming, but points out that without a major technological breakthrough, we’re largely powerless to do much of anything. “The addiction to fossil fuels will triumph,” he says. More:

Despite Paris, we haven’t acknowledged the difficulties of grappling with climate change, whose extent and timing are uncertain. We invent soothing fantasies to simplify matters. The notion that the world can wean itself from fossil fuels by substituting renewables is one of these. The potential isn’t large enough.

Actual choices are harder. For example, Bryce argues that only an expansion of nuclear power could replace significant volumes of fossil fuels. But greater reliance on nuclear poses its own dangers, including the disposal of atomic waste, operational accidents and vulnerability to terrorism.

It’s true that technological breakthroughs could change this. We know what’s needed: cheaper and safer nuclear power; better batteries and energy storage, boosting wind and solar by making more of their power usable; cost-effective carbon capture and storage — making coal more acceptable by burying its carbon dioxide in the ground.

We have been searching for solutions for decades with only modest success. We need to keep searching, but without meaningful advances, regulating the world’s temperature is mission impossible.

It’s at this point that people get really mad, and accuse Samuelson of being a fatalist. But outrage does nothing to answer his point: the task is immense — scientifically and politically — and though we have to keep trying for a solution, there are no realistic ones now.

None of this is to say that Donald Trump is right about global warming, and that we should yield to his viewpoint. At what point, though, do people start to accept that this problem is only secondarily one of US political will? I mean, at what point to people start to accept that nothing serious is going to happen on the climate change front because nothing serious can happen — because of political will globally, yes, but also because the problems are, at this moment, technologically, economically, and politically impossible to solve?

That is to say, at what point does the primary focus of we who accept anthropogenic global warming go on building up community resilience for what’s to come? What would that look like?
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I'm just stoked that now we can work for true energy independence.

It's the climate change policies espoused by the left, and their catastrophic predictions I disagree with. And the fact that if you disagree with those policies you are treated like you are an idiot who doesn't understand science.

By "true energy independence" do you mean moving to renewables? Because this does not inspire confidence: Trump administration silences the Department of Energy’s Sunshot team | Electrek

I'm surprised to hear you label climate change as something that is espoused by the left. The science advocacy campaign that was kickstarted by the EPA gag order is strictly non-partisan. There are scientists at NPS and NASA who also voted Trump who are also strong advocates for climate change, and who are now speaking against these actions/policies.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
By "true energy independence" do you mean moving to renewables? Because this does not inspire confidence: Trump administration silences the Department of Energy’s Sunshot team | Electrek

I'm surprised to hear you label climate change as something that is espoused by the left. The science advocacy campaign that was kickstarted by the EPA gag order is strictly non-partisan. There are scientists at NPS and NASA who also voted Trump who are also strong advocates for climate change, and who are now speaking against these actions/policies.

I mean getting the Gov't out of energy production to the extent possible, providing all our own energy, and exporting fossils to the rest of the world for profit.

There should be no subsidies for corn, or wind or anything else. If its viable in the market it will survive, if not then too bad.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
^ I get that. I've also linked upthread about China shifting to renewable energy.

As for India: India plans nearly 60% of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027 | World news | The Guardian
The Indian government has forecast that it will exceed the renewable energy targets set in Paris last year by nearly half and three years ahead of schedule.

A draft 10-year energy blueprint published this week predicts that 57% of India’s total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027. The Paris climate accord target was 40% by 2030.

The forecast reflects an increase in private sector investment in Indian renewable energy projects over the past year, according to analysts.

The draft national electricity plan also indicated that no new coal-fired power stations were likely to be required to meet Indian energy needs until at least 2027, raising further doubts over the viability of Indian mining investments overseas, such as the energy company Adani’s Carmichael mine in Queensland, the largest coalmine planned to be built in Australia.

I don't understand the fatalism.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I mean getting the Gov't out of energy production to the extent possible, providing all our own energy, and exporting fossils to the rest of the world for profit.

There should be no subsidies for corn, or wind or anything else. If its viable in the market it will survive, if not then too bad.

I think you'll be disappointed if you're looking to export of fossil fuels for profit. Growth in fossil fuel emissions slowed in 2015, so have we finally reached the peak?

The principal cause of this unexpected lack of growth in emissions is the slowdown in the production and consumption of coal-based energy in China in 2014, followed by a decline in 2015.

This has taken China’s emissions growth from close to double digits during the past decade to an extraordinary low of 1.2% growth in 2014 and an unexpected decline by about 4% projected for 2015.


Although China is only responsible for 27% of global emissions, it has dominated the growth in global emissions since early 2000s. Therefore, a slowdown in China’s emissions has an immediate global impact.

China is the largest carbon emitter in the world, and demand has slowed there. They used to import coal from Australia, and the coal mining industry has shrunk because of lack of demand.

If you agree that climate change is caused by fossil fuels, and if other countries are already making efforts to shift away from them, the "everyone else is burning them so we should do it too because it makes absolutely not difference" argument fails.

I also do not believe that a completely unregulated market will be anything but exploitative.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
I think you'll be disappointed if you're looking to export of fossil fuels for profit. Growth in fossil fuel emissions slowed in 2015, so have we finally reached the peak?


China is the largest carbon emitter in the world, and demand has slowed there. They used to import coal from Australia, and the coal mining industry has shrunk because of lack of demand.

If you agree that climate change is caused by fossil fuels, and if other countries are already making efforts to shift away from them, the "everyone else is burning them so we should do it too because it makes absolutely not difference" argument fails.

I also do not believe that a completely unregulated market will be anything but exploitative.


We are both entitled to our opinions. The only grid level viable renewable source is nuclear.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I don't understand wasting money on shit that won't make a difference.

So let me get this straight - you believe that man-made global warming that causes climate change is real, I've provided evidence that the largest emissions producer in the world, China, has shifted towards renewables and so has the other listed example (India), and you are unwilling to take action because you believe that the 2nd largest emissions producer (the US) in combination with Europe moving in the same direction will make no difference? Also, even if you believe that climate change is real, you believe that any money spent towards countering it is a "waste"?
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
We are both entitled to our opinions. The only grid level viable renewable source is nuclear.

Why do you believe that when other major countries have already made the shift towards solar and wind?
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
So let me get this straight - you believe that man-made global warming that causes climate change is real, I've provided evidence that the largest emissions producer in the world, China, has shifted towards renewables and so has the other listed example (India), and you are unwilling to take action because you believe that the 2nd largest emissions producer (the US) in combination with Europe moving in the same direction will make no difference? Also, even if you believe that climate change is real, you believe that any money spent towards countering it is a "waste"?

Let me get this straight, after all I've posted THAT is the understanding of my position you come to?
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Let me get this straight, after all I've posted THAT is the understanding of my position you come to?

Obviously I'm missing something. That's what I put together from your quotes of that Samuel Robertson guy in combination with what you've been saying. It didn't make any sense to me.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Are the chinese and indian grid reliant on wind and solar?

You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying.

No, they're not reliant on it. But is clearly not an absolute thing. No one country gets their power from a single source. It's also beneficial to develop industries providing different sources of power - makes the price of power less vulnerable to market conditions. I don't see how shifting towards renewable/clean energy and diversifying energy sources is impossible or bad?

- - - Updated - - -

That much is clear.

So please explain.
 
Top