Especially when it's put forth by someone that doesn't meet their own criteria to be making a statement on it.
|
|
|
Carbon emissions
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
Especially when it's put forth by someone that doesn't meet their own criteria to be making a statement on it.
nakkers said
Refusing to accept reality ....such as denying AGW...is not a basis for useful discussion on what to do about it.
These are both facts
That is also a fact.....not opinion.
No amount of discussion will change that.
Best course to deal with the consequences of those facts is to have civil discussions such as nakkers asks for.
Advocate and legislate changes in the current practices to mitigate or even reverse the damaging consequences of a climate change we have caused that is far too rapid for the biome to cope with.
Humans created the problem while building a wonderful industrial civilization based in large part on FF energy.
The consequences of which were not fully understood at the time tho the evidence was growing even in the 50s ...but it all seemed far in the future reading about in Scientific American.
Far future arrived as now in 80s.....Exxon scientists knew in the 70s.
So now those that most benefitted from that are faced with dealing with the consequences in too short a time to avoid serious consequences.
The task is doing so in such a way as to maintain our level of comfort and progress while slowing and stopping the underlying cause....and try and be fair to those who, through no fault of their own in many cases, are bearing the changes even now.
Civil discourse on the best course of actions for individuals, through to the political leadership decisions for society wide changes, is a good start.
Discussing differences in opinions is one thing...
Refusing to accept reality ....such as denying AGW...is not a basis for useful discussion on what to do about it.
These are both facts
You missed a key one tho...the current primary cause of a change in climate is release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels
That is also a fact.....not opinion.
No amount of discussion will change that.
Best course to deal with the consequences of those facts is to have civil discussions such as nakkers asks for.
Advocate and legislate changes in the current practices to mitigate or even reverse the damaging consequences of a climate change we have caused that is far too rapid for the biome to cope with.
Humans created the problem while building a wonderful industrial civilization based in large part on FF energy.
The consequences of which were not fully understood at the time tho the evidence was growing even in the 50s ...but it all seemed far in the future reading about in Scientific American.
Far future arrived as now in 80s.....Exxon scientists knew in the 70s.
So now those that most benefitted from that are faced with dealing with the consequences in too short a time to avoid serious consequences.
The task is doing so in such a way as to maintain our level of comfort and progress while slowing and stopping the underlying cause....and try and be fair to those who, through no fault of their own in many cases, are bearing the changes even now.
There are no magic bullets, no easy way to deal with the consequences of our two century binge on cheap energy from FF.
Civil discourse on the best course of actions for individuals, through to the political leadership decisions for society wide changes, is a good start.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Qualification can be a tough bar to define.
I prefer qualifying somebody by what they have done rather than what badges they have collected.
Same here, but when someone's qualifications consist entirely of amplifying whatever they find on social media, the more controversial and click-worthy the merrier ...
OK. However, there is not a scientific or scholarly consensus as to the negative impacts, predictions or conclusions this is having to the earth.
It can be argued there are positive effects of having more CO2 in the atmosphere. It can also be argued and debated the climate is not a delicate system that will be destroyed because of CO2 emission.
It can also be argued and debated the human impact to the earth has generally had a positive effect on the earth and life forms. For humans, there are improvements with agriculture and living conditions such as access to clean water and waste management.
It can be argued that fossil fuels are finite and will eventually run out. However, that argument can be made for all natural/raw materials we mine from the earth. Current estimates indicate there are more oil reserves than previous known.
I’m not suggesting we do nothing. However, I’m skeptical of the crisis and end of days predictions from activists that are influencing governments into bad policies without consideration to negative impacts they have. We are quick to say we must do something and this is the best we got and continue to dismiss the negative impacts these policies have right in front of us and plow ahead.
I’m sure there are smarter people than me that have better ideas and solutions. However, they may not resonate with the activists that won’t accept anything other than net zero emissions and continue the rhetoric that human existence will be the end to all other life and the the world.
There is a difference between "it being argued" and providing evidence and a few of your points that would be hard to achieve
Extreme views of "end of days", existential threat etc is not representative of the main stream effort to mitigate climate change or of the science guiding those efforts. Heck there are adherents to the earth being flat...
singularly lacking in evidence.
My somewhat informed opinion is that it is incorrect.
Evidence of our positive impact on the biome...not just from emissions but other climate altering behaviours, deforestation, monocropping to name two would be hard to come by.
Extreme views of "end of days", existential threat etc is not representative of the main stream effort to mitigate climate change or of the science guiding those efforts. Heck there are adherents to the earth being flat...
singularly lacking in evidence.
Any evidence to support that statement?
My somewhat informed opinion is that it is incorrect.
Ok. I want to make this clear. I am not a climate denier. I support progress to better solutions and improvement. I do not support half baked political policies in the name of saving the planet. I care about the environment but, I don’t agree with the carbon tax policies will lead to any path to a better place or better solutions.
I’ll start with Dr Judith Curry. I’m sure there will be criticism of her being a denier. However, I believe she got smeared by colleagues because she spoke out against the norm.
There are many videos on YouTube. However, I wanted to post something recent. The production and host is comical but, if you fast forward 7:40 for a listen for a bit and then to 15:00, there is something worth listening to.
Not that I’m hiding or omitting anything. Listen to the whole thing or look her up on other videos related to climate change.
IMO, Dr. Curry is not debunking climate change or suggesting we burn up fossil fuels without caution. I think she provides a pragmatic point of view that is evidence based if you are willing to give her a chance.
There are others that agree with Dr Curry. Dr. William Happer & Dr. Richard Lindzen. All three are older generations where having an opinion different than the norm is ok because they don’t rely on government grants, funding for research.
I’ll start with Dr Judith Curry. I’m sure there will be criticism of her being a denier. However, I believe she got smeared by colleagues because she spoke out against the norm.
There are many videos on YouTube. However, I wanted to post something recent. The production and host is comical but, if you fast forward 7:40 for a listen for a bit and then to 15:00, there is something worth listening to.
Not that I’m hiding or omitting anything. Listen to the whole thing or look her up on other videos related to climate change.
IMO, Dr. Curry is not debunking climate change or suggesting we burn up fossil fuels without caution. I think she provides a pragmatic point of view that is evidence based if you are willing to give her a chance.
There are others that agree with Dr Curry. Dr. William Happer & Dr. Richard Lindzen. All three are older generations where having an opinion different than the norm is ok because they don’t rely on government grants, funding for research.
Bold quote related to my statement, there is not a scientific or scholarly consensus to the negative impacts, predictions or conclusions.
No I can’t. If you could provide me with your sources beyond naming a search browser that has a scientific or scholarly consensus of the negative impacts of climate change, I’m happy to look into it further. I truly appreciate it.
My statement is based on looking further than the headline 97% of scientists agree humans cause climate change. After that, there really is no consensus as to what degree or to what impacts it will have.
There is all kinds of reports suggesting rising sea levels, flood damage, increased severe weather events, increased wildlife extinction warnings, food shortages and starvation etc.
I believe we are and can continue to be good stewards of the earth. It just doesn’t make sense to tax energy use that isn’t electric. We need natural gas and other sustainable and reliable energy sources beyond electricity alone. And I would say this is a fact based on current and future global energy needs.
DownUnder
Well-known member
For the last 60yrs science has been saying that we will all be underwater in the next 10yrs if we don't stop fossil fuels etc. Yet the rich people pushing it are still buying multi million dollar beach homes all over the planet.
I don't care how much money China spends on renewable energy when they are opening a new coal plant every week, me driving a pick up is a grain of sand in the Sahara in comparison.
I don't care how much money China spends on renewable energy when they are opening a new coal plant every week, me driving a pick up is a grain of sand in the Sahara in comparison.
When your stinky rich it’s a different game , Taylor burnt 5000lbs of fuel to see her boyfriend play football, Tokyo to Vegas .
So the liberal government has rebranded the carbon tax as of yesterday, it’s now the rebate program . I never saw through that , I feel better now .
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
So the liberal government has rebranded the carbon tax as of yesterday, it’s now the rebate program . I never saw through that , I feel better now .
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
Yep.
Judith Curry
Judith Curry Credentials Background Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and professor emerita of the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she chaired the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences from 2002–2014. She is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a...
www.desmog.com
Another one to not pay attention to.
As for that carbon tax ... WITHOUT climate-denier spiel ... Suggest alternatives. Believe me, those in a position of responsibility have looked at lots of them. Behaviours need to change. HOW do you get the average person to think about energy consumption?
In the temperate parts of the year, my HVAC is off, and the windows are open as much as possible ... through which I hear my neighbor's air-conditioning unit. How do you get people to think about stuff like that?
Through their wallet.Yep.
Judith Curry
Judith Curry Credentials Background Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and professor emerita of the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she chaired the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences from 2002–2014. She is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a...
Another one to not pay attention to.
How do you get people to think about stuff like that?
We must all do our part
Here is what I know and I’m sure there will be some to dismiss my opinion because it doesn’t align with what they believe or know for themselves. I do change my mind because I don’t have the answers. I’m open to other points of view to explore and when they are well reasoned and supported with evidence, I’m happy to be proven wrong to adopt a different point of view.
I’m skeptical of all sources of information. Even if it may align with my current point of view. It’s a challenge to express an opinion regarding an issue as complex as climate change without having a wall of txt to read that leads to folks scrolling on through to find the juicy bits. Or simply ignore and find the posts that might resonate better.
In terms of concern for the planet, I’m more concerned about micro plastics in our water supply. We use more plastic today than ever before and it breaks down to tiny bits and causes lots of problems. We need plastic and it’s everywhere. But, we are terrible at dealing with it. We feel good about our recycling bins placed out at the curb but once they go to the processing facility, very little is actually recycled. Generally it gets incinerated and that can’t be good for the atmosphere.
Ok back on topic of carbon emissions. I want clean air and clean water and a way of life to enjoy everything the world has to offer.
The consequences of climate change as I understand them are:
The problem I have is associating carbon emissions as the cause to the bad things listed above. Yes, CO2 is a green house gas and yes, humans are the largest contributor to this.
However, increased CO2 benefits a lot of things. Greenhouses pump the stuff in to make things grow faster and larger.
Since the beginning of satellite image tracking, the earth continues to get greener. Warmer climate makes for improved organic conditions.
More people die from extreme cold than extreme heat. And overall deaths related to both extremes has been declining for decades. EDIT: this is false. Heat related deaths have increased while cold related deaths decreased. Overall deaths have decreased and posted source for reference in a later post.
I completely support increasing electric generation via nuclear. I went to college for 3 years and was going to work at Bruce after graduation but, life changes. So, I do know the benefits of nuclear and was frustrated by the slow development of it as an energy producer based on fear mongering of byproducts turned to weapons of war and improper storage of radioactive waste etc.
If the federal government wants to take that carbon tax and direct it at building more nuclear plants, I support it completely.
I’m still scratching my head over the windmill contracts. A lot of money for intermittent supply and a lot of uncertainty when they start to age out from the cost of regular maintenance schedules. Do we replace them with new ones and what are we going to do with the old ones?
Solar? Not bad for those that boondock but, as a consistent and stable energy source? I’m not sure? They can be damaged by hail or debris and what happens when they age out too? Will they get recycled? Who is going to supply us with more? How about the cost of replacement?
I don’t want to get into a pissing contest with who has the best sources of information and debunking them. It’s counter productive.
I see government waste and I’m critical of it and prefer our tax dollars are allocated to other initiatives. The climate can remain a priority but, taxing and redistributing the funds doesn’t provide the results and it can be argued it actually impacts as all in a negative way. Namely our pocket books and I don’t see a path towards meaningful results.
I’m skeptical of all sources of information. Even if it may align with my current point of view. It’s a challenge to express an opinion regarding an issue as complex as climate change without having a wall of txt to read that leads to folks scrolling on through to find the juicy bits. Or simply ignore and find the posts that might resonate better.
In terms of concern for the planet, I’m more concerned about micro plastics in our water supply. We use more plastic today than ever before and it breaks down to tiny bits and causes lots of problems. We need plastic and it’s everywhere. But, we are terrible at dealing with it. We feel good about our recycling bins placed out at the curb but once they go to the processing facility, very little is actually recycled. Generally it gets incinerated and that can’t be good for the atmosphere.
Ok back on topic of carbon emissions. I want clean air and clean water and a way of life to enjoy everything the world has to offer.
The consequences of climate change as I understand them are:
- Polar ice caps melting that results in rising sea levels
- Ocean acidification from carbon absorption impacting marine life
- Severe weather events such as forest fires, floods, drought, extreme heat, extreme cold resulting in deaths and less food supply
- Poor air quality resulting in asthma and respiratory illness and disease straining health care systems and causing deaths
The problem I have is associating carbon emissions as the cause to the bad things listed above. Yes, CO2 is a green house gas and yes, humans are the largest contributor to this.
However, increased CO2 benefits a lot of things. Greenhouses pump the stuff in to make things grow faster and larger.
Since the beginning of satellite image tracking, the earth continues to get greener. Warmer climate makes for improved organic conditions.
More people die from extreme cold than extreme heat. And overall deaths related to both extremes has been declining for decades. EDIT: this is false. Heat related deaths have increased while cold related deaths decreased. Overall deaths have decreased and posted source for reference in a later post.
I completely support increasing electric generation via nuclear. I went to college for 3 years and was going to work at Bruce after graduation but, life changes. So, I do know the benefits of nuclear and was frustrated by the slow development of it as an energy producer based on fear mongering of byproducts turned to weapons of war and improper storage of radioactive waste etc.
If the federal government wants to take that carbon tax and direct it at building more nuclear plants, I support it completely.
I’m still scratching my head over the windmill contracts. A lot of money for intermittent supply and a lot of uncertainty when they start to age out from the cost of regular maintenance schedules. Do we replace them with new ones and what are we going to do with the old ones?
Solar? Not bad for those that boondock but, as a consistent and stable energy source? I’m not sure? They can be damaged by hail or debris and what happens when they age out too? Will they get recycled? Who is going to supply us with more? How about the cost of replacement?
I don’t want to get into a pissing contest with who has the best sources of information and debunking them. It’s counter productive.
I see government waste and I’m critical of it and prefer our tax dollars are allocated to other initiatives. The climate can remain a priority but, taxing and redistributing the funds doesn’t provide the results and it can be argued it actually impacts as all in a negative way. Namely our pocket books and I don’t see a path towards meaningful results.
Last edited:
5000 lbs? Tokyo to LAX at about 500 gal/hour for 12 hours. LAX to Vegas at ~350 gal/hr for an hour. That is ~6500 gallons of fuel or ~52,000 lbs.
|
|
|
|
|