I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Skins24]

Yay a climate change thread...

 

Ugh...4 pages already. Before reading through to address the OP, of course it's about money...on both sides. If you think otherwise, I have a bridge built by unicorns to sell you.

Climate change itself - Of course it's changing. If it didn't we would die. Global warming bad - For who? Certainly not humans. We thrive in a warmer climate and the latest studies show what? Even without any pauses the net effect of a warming climate will remain positive for another 70 years or so? Speaking of pauses, that silly old Sun showed that one little nap can slow down warming far more than ANY model ever predicted..even with ever increasing C02. So perhaps our influence is being overstated, no? The record low tornadoes and record low hurricanes we've been seeing as of late are making those silly predictions of more and more powerful storms look silly. I like snow and the 2010s (yes the 4 year old 2010s) has already been the snowiest decade for the east coast since who knows when, so if climate change brings more snow...awesome! The alternative to a warming climate is a cooling climate. Yeah...let's try to do that. See how that turns out. 

 

 

 

 

tosses grenade...walks away

 

[Larry]

It's a shame nobody bothered to engage this post.

I do think he made some interesting points. Although I think some of them are a lot more complicated and less lopsided that he's painting them.

Yes, I'm well aware that it used to be that the R's supported nuclear power, and the D's completely demonized it. But I'm also aware that that seems to have changed, lately. (Nowadays, it seems to be one of those things that doesn't seem to break down on rabidly partisan lines, any more. And isn't that a refreshing change?)

I think that Global Warming has caused a lot of D's (and environmentalist D's, which are the ones who really drive that party's position) to reconsider that option. (I'm aware that I've expressed the opinion, before, that nuclear is a zero-greenhouse-gas power plan, and the only one which is working, right now. Lots to be said for that.)

(And I think a lot of R's position changed on the issue, when Obama endorsed it.)

But me, I absolutely think it needs to be part of The Plan.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Larry

[Hersh]

It's a shame nobody bothered to engage this post.

 

I was prepared to but didn't have time earlier. While there have been a few Republicans, starting with Nixon, that have done positive steps in helping the environment, the vast majority of Republicans in office want to deregulate everything (whether they comprehend the issue or not) and many openingly talk about eliminating the EPA. Even in small ways their policies point toward a priority on tax cuts for wealthy and all things money vs positives for the environment.

 

An example would be the NC the Republican legislature when they cut taxes for the wealthy, for corporations, and kept a sales tax cap on boats, but eliminated a tax free weekend of energy efficient appliances under the guise of it stopped $1.2 million in revenue from coming into the state. Promoting energy efficiency (along with fuel effiency standards) should be a big part of the solution to this problem.

 

It's not just big ticket items that they are against, but smaller, positive items that don't "hurt" industry.

 

BTW, as of thirty minutes ago, I'm officially producing solar power at my house.

[twa]

 

Alt. energy approaches are getting better and in some cases and in some areas of the US they are really close if not there with respect to being economically effecient to fossil fuels.

about mitigating the effects. 

 

where may I ask?, (excluding hydro of course)

not even wind here is real close w/o subsidies and they have to game the market to get that close by requiring purchase nomatter the time or need

 

Just out of curiosity, do you have any support for this claim that the US has reduced CO2 emissions?

I would be very surprised (and pleasantly surprised) if that were so.

been falling for awhile, and will continue as coal is crushed,

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/05/americas-falling-carbon-dioxide-emissions

 

gasoline use has fell as well as cars get more efficient(and of course the unemployed can't afford it)

[Larry]

been falling for awhile, and will continue as coal is crushed,

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/05/americas-falling-carbon-dioxide-emissions

 

gasoline use has fell as well as cars get more efficient(and of course the unemployed can't afford it)

Observing that your article (which reads like a press release from the Fracking Industry Association) says that we're emitting less Carbon from generating electricity.

But still, less is less. Something to be said, for that.

[alexey]

It's a shame nobody bothered to engage this post.

I also chimed in, explaining why "all of above" is basically a way to avoid acknowledging that fossil fuels have long term costs that are not being paid right now.

Subsidies that we currently have for fossil fuels need to stop. Government needs to take action and begin the drive to factor in long term costs of fossil fuels.

GOP uses two approaches to fight this

1) deflect the conversation with "all of the above"

2) if the conversation starts, engage in fear and tax mongering

Edited August 4, 2014 by alexey

[PeterMP]

where may I ask?, (excluding hydro of course)

not even wind here is real close w/o subsidies and they have to game the market to get that close by requiring purchase nomatter the time or need

 

been falling for awhile, and will continue as coal is crushed,

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/05/americas-falling-carbon-dioxide-emissions

 

gasoline use has fell as well as cars get more efficient(and of course the unemployed can't afford it)

 

Hydro certainly, and nuclear in some areas, and solar is very close if not there in some areas:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Costs

 

" New CSP stations may be economically competitive with fossil fuels. Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has calculated that the cost of electricity at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, a project under construction in Southern California, will be lower than that from photovoltaic power and about the same as that from natural gas.^[30] However, in November 2011, Google announced that they would not invest further in CSP projects due to the rapid price decline of photovoltaics. Google invested US$168 million on BrightSource.^[31][32]IRENA has published on June 2012 a series of studies titled: "Renewable Energy Cost Analysis". The CSP study shows the cost of both building and operation of CSP plants. Costs are expected to decrease, but there are insufficient installations to clearly establish the learning curve. As of March 2012, there were 1.9 GW of CSP installed, with 1.8 GW of that being parabolic trough."

 

(Realistically, coal with no regulations is still going to win, but I don't think anybody really supports burning coal w/o regulations.)

 

But even if it IS there, there is the issue of existing infra structure.  From an economic situation, why should I replace the things I'm doing to generate power with something that just is as economically efficient as what I've been doing.

 

If I've been generating electricity by doing X, I have facilities to do X, I have experience and a work force designed to do X, why should I start doing Y just because Y is as efficient?

 

It isn't going to happen without large governmental support.

 

We're going to need the alternative energies to be clearly better than fossil fuels before we get any real shift, and if things keep proceeding the way they have in terms of technology/economics, that isn't happening any time soon.

 

(And I think in some areas geothermal is actually in the same ball park.)

 

Larry, our CO2 levels have dropped in total and per capitia.

 

Much of it was even done under Bush and is largely tied to the economic situation and the (continued) loss of industry.

 

Essentially none of it was tied to a resonable energy policy.

 

From wiki:

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/380491-i-want-to-sue-the-republican-party-for-willful-denial-of-scientific-evidence-about-climate-change/page-4

 

In 2000, we were admitting 20 metric tons based on per capita numbers (it actually doesn't per a how many people), and in 2009 we were down to 17.2

 

Now, I expect it might have started to come back up as the economy has recovered.

 

Yay a climate change thread...

 

Ugh...4 pages already. Before reading through to address the OP, of course it's about money...on both sides. If you think otherwise, I have a bridge built by unicorns to sell you.

Climate change itself - Of course it's changing. If it didn't we would die. Global warming bad - For who? Certainly not humans. We thrive in a warmer climate and the latest studies show what? Even without any pauses the net effect of a warming climate will remain positive for another 70 years or so? Speaking of pauses, that silly old Sun showed that one little nap can slow down warming far more than ANY model ever predicted..even with ever increasing C02. So perhaps our influence is being overstated, no? The record low tornadoes and record low hurricanes we've been seeing as of late are making those silly predictions of more and more powerful storms look silly. I like snow and the 2010s (yes the 4 year old 2010s) has already been the snowiest decade for the east coast since who knows when, so if climate change brings more snow...awesome! The alternative to a warming climate is a cooling climate. Yeah...let's try to do that. See how that turns out. 

tosses grenade...walks away

 

Yay, a let's throw out as much garbage as I can into one post without bothering to even worry about what has already been posted in the thread and see what sticks post.

Edited August 4, 2014 by PeterMP

[twa]

Hydro certainly, and nuclear in some areas, and solar is very close if not there in some areas:

.

 

 

 

Solar is no where near close(Ivanpah is not going so wellhttp://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/02/19/largest-solar-thermal-plant-completed-ivanpah) especially if ya add the required backup generation costs it has to have, wind is the closest  and geothermal.....never heard nuke was a alt energy

 

I'd love to see more hydro,nuclear and geothermal, but the greens and company are not cooperative.

[PeterMP]

Solar is no where near close(Ivanpah is not going so wellhttp://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/02/19/largest-solar-thermal-plant-completed-ivanpah) especially if ya add the required backup generation costs it has to have, wind is the closest  and geothermal.....never heard nuke was a alt energy

 

I'd love to see more hydro,nuclear and geothermal, but the greens and company are not cooperative.

 

Your piece has very little do with costs of generating electricty with respect to fossil fuels.  The biggest issue from an economic stand point is that PV panels got a lot cheaper (related to Chinese "dumping"), but if it is close and another solar energy got a lot cheaper (even if that is due to Chinese "dumping") that just means that type of solar energy is now close (in that area).

 

Is Obama a green?  Because he's certainly been cooperative with the nuclear power industry.

Edited August 4, 2014 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

 

 

Yay, a let's throw out as much garbage as I can into one post without bothering to even worry about what has already been posted in the thread and see what sticks post.

Indeed   

 

Finally read through and I really did not repeat anything..so 

 

 

Anyway, simple solution to the problem of getting people to do what needs to be done - Take out the 'climate change' part. Keep it simple. We should NOT be trying to prevent climate change anyway as the ONLY way to do so would be to stop the rotation of the Earth.

Back when the focus was on pollution prevention (as the focus without a doubt should be) you had the Acts passed...stuff got done. Why would you switch the focus to something even more divisive? You have plenty of examples (Ohio's water, any city in China's air) of reasons for needing to change without invoking climate change or global warming, so why do it?

[alexey]

Anyway, simple solution to the problem of getting people to do what needs to be done - Take out the 'climate change' part. Keep it simple. We should NOT be trying to prevent climate change anyway as the ONLY way to do so would be to stop the rotation of the Earth.

Back when the focus was on pollution prevention (as the focus without a doubt should be) you had the Acts passed...stuff got done. Why would you switch the focus to something even more divisive? You have plenty of examples (Ohio's water, any city in China's air) of reasons for needing to change without invoking climate change or global warming, so why do it?

How about: let's not "prevent" climate change. Let's "manage" the relationship between our activities and climate.

I am not sure how to understand the rest of your point. Are you saying that managing greenhouse gas emissions is difficult, so we should do something that is easier and unrelated?

Edited August 4, 2014 by alexey

[twa]

Your piece has very little do with costs of generating electricty with respect to fossil fuels.  The biggest issue from an economic stand point is that PV panels got a lot cheaper (related to Chinese "dumping"), but if it is close and another solar energy got a lot cheaper (even if that is due to Chinese "dumping") that just means that type of solar energy is now close (in that area).

 

Is Obama a green?  Because he's certainly been cooperative with the nuclear power industry.

 

I've posted the levelized costs of different sources a hundred times, if ya consider 2 or 3 times the cost close we have a problem....and that is not even including the backup source costs it requires.

 

$2.2 billion to get you total capacity of 392 MWh that still needs fossil fuel 

 

 

[PeterMP]

Indeed   

 

Finally read through and I really did not repeat anything..so 

 

 

Anyway, simple solution to the problem of getting people to do what needs to be done - Take out the 'climate change' part. Keep it simple. We should NOT be trying to prevent climate change anyway as the ONLY way to do so would be to stop the rotation of the Earth.

Back when the focus was on pollution prevention (as the focus without a doubt should be) you had the Acts passed...stuff got done. Why would you switch the focus to something even more divisive? You have plenty of examples (Ohio's water, any city in China's air) of reasons for needing to change without invoking climate change or global warming, so why do it?

 

twa had already addressed the "hiatus", which you mention (i.e. the suns nap), and I addressed that and the "issue" with climate models.that you refer to.

 

So those two topics have been covered, and your post didn't add anything other than repeat something that had already been said and refuted and to try and introduce something that I pre-emptively refuted.

 

Because climate change is an issue, and our increasing levels of CO2 are having affects that are/will affect the human population, and even specifically the US.

 

And so we should do something about it.

 

That's why.

I've posted the levelized costs of different sources a hundred times, if ya consider 2 or 3 times the cost close we have a problem....and that is not even including the backup source costs it requires.

 

$2.2 billion to get you total capacity of 392 MWh that still needs fossil fuel 

 

 

So rather than post something on point that would actually make your point, you decided to post something that was essentially irrelevant?

[twa]

how is showing Ivanpah is not near close in price of supplied power essentially irrelevant?....your mentioning of it might be though 

 

I'm not adverse to chasing rabbits .....it all leads back to costs and impracticality eventually

[Skins24]

twa had already addressed the "hiatus", which you mention (i.e. the suns nap), and I addressed that and the "issue" with climate models.that you refer to.

 

So those two topics have been covered, and your post didn't add anything other than repeat something that had already been said and refuted and to try and introduce something that I pre-emptively refuted.

 

Because climate change is an issue, and our increasing levels of CO2 are having affects that are/will affect the human population, and even specifically the US.

 

And so we should do something about it.

 

That's why.

 

So rather than post something on point that would actually make your point, you decided to post something that was essentially irrelevant?

Ugh!! My post disappeared!

 

To make this quick

1) Check the ninja. That first post was to be taken with a grain of salt at best

2) The only time I mentioned climate models was pointing out that they did not predict the slow down - I never said hiatus - that occurred to the degree it occurred. The fact that it was a slow down and not reversal means last year being the warmest non El Nino year is not all that shocking or proof that a slow down did not occur. If I warm a pot of water 10 degrees per minute then slow it to 5 degrees per minute, I'm still warming the pot. 

 

To address the second part and Alexey

 

 

 am not sure how to understand the rest of your point. Are you saying that managing greenhouse gas emissions is difficult, so we should do something that is easier and unrelated?

I'm simply saying our focus needs to be redirected. 

 

Which is more apt to get people to do something? Showing them this:

 

 

or this and saying "Gasp! The sea level has risen 3cm!"

[Predicto]

Mike, I understand your frustration, it is perfectly understandable, but the lawsuit idea is a lousy one.  This is -unfortunately - a political question and it will play out in the voting booth. 

 

But it does remind me of a great cartoon on the subject:

 

 

[Predicto]

 

 

I'm simply saying our focus needs to be redirected. 

 

Which is more apt to get people to do something? Showing them this:

 

or this and saying "Gasp! The sea level has risen 3cm!"

 

 

 

The problem with this suggestion is that all pollution isn't the same.  Cleaning up fine particulate pollution like you are showing in that picture from China isn't going to help with CO2 emissions very much.  Neither is cleaning up polluted rivers or the sea of plastic garbage in the central Pacific.  

 

CO2 isn't really a pollutant.  We can breathe it just fine.  We do breathe it, all the time.  It won't make us sick.  It just makes the planet hotter and hotter as we release more of it into the atmosphere.  It will mess up our weather, it will shrink our coastlines, it will affect us deeply, but it isn't ever going to "look" like pollution, and thus I think your strategy is likely to backfire.

[Larry]

Folks,

If I'm reading 24's point correctly, he's not saying we shouldn't do anything about CO2. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I think he's proposing what he thinks is a better way of selling the idea that we have to do something.

[alexey]

I'm simply saying our focus needs to be redirected.

Which is more apt to get people to do something? Showing them this:

...

or this and saying "Gasp! The sea level has risen 3cm!"

I think you are right on, it is much easier to convince people about things that can be communicated with a single picture, like smog.

You have identified the problem... But your solution is what, to focus on smog instead? How is that related to managing human greenhouse gas emissions?

I am not even clear if you are arguing that greenhouse gas emissions are not a problem, that it is a problem but we should ignore it, or that we should deal with the problem using a different messaging strategy.

Edited August 4, 2014 by alexey

[Predicto]

Folks,

If I'm reading 24's point correctly, he's not saying we shouldn't do anything about CO2. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I think he's proposing what he thinks is a better way of selling the idea that we have to do something.

 

 

I agree that was his point.  I just think you are going to have a difficult time selling the idea that we have to do something about CO2 if people keep refusing to believe we are causing global climate change because "their" political side has told them not to trust the scientists.  The Dunning-Kruger effect is very powerful, and a lot of conservatives genuinely believe the science is still an open question.

 

Every conservative I know opposes wanton pollution.   None of them want to live like those people in Beijing.   They still oppose action on CO2, because they genuinely don't think it is a real problem (or a problem that we can do anyhing about).

Edited August 4, 2014 by Predicto

[skinsmarydu]

Every conservative I know opposes wanton pollution.   None of them want to live like those people in Beijing.   They still oppose action on CO2, because they genuinely don't think it is a real problem (or a problem that we can do anyhing about).

What befuddles me (hell, probably both of us) is that lack of even an inkling of worry. Just keep makin' money. On the stuff that kills ya.

That's a level of idiocy all its' own.

[twa]

What befuddles me (hell, probably both of us) is that lack of even an inkling of worry. Just keep makin' money. On the stuff that kills ya.

That's a level of idiocy all its' own.

 

not quite as idiotic as destroying our industries  and economy to buy from worse polluters .

 

broke,dumb and still with a rising co2 is no way to go thru life.....ask detroit, or germany or spain for that matter

[Skins24]

Exactly Larry.

Hate typing on the phone so more later. I've been interested in/studying meteorology most of my life so of course I and any one who's researched will know about different pollutants but the everyday man will not.

More later

[AsburySkinsFan]

twa's proposal...

1) finally after years of denial admit that global warming is occurring

2) after years of denial of human contribution toward global warming finally admit that humans are contributing

3) reject any idea that doesn't fix the whole problem in one stroke because jobs are more important than an environment in which people live, breathe, eat and drink.

4) when confronted reply with snarky and dismissive attitude that blissfully ignores the devastation that even moderate rises sea level will cause, not to mention the damage that desalination will wrought.

5) maintain status quo

[Springfield]

I don't know that cap and trade is the right way to go about "fixing it". It might be, but boy do I get the "sleazy government corruption" vibe with cap and trade. As in, the companies with all the money will actually benefit and the small businesses will be hurt by it.