Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Without global agreements, it is stupid to unilaterally cut back on coal.

Also, we need more nuclear power plants.

[byu71]

I have been hearing lately about the restoration of the manufacturing base here in America. Why, because energy costs are so low here they offset low wages elsewhere. Our competitors around the world have to be applauding President Obama right now.

I think they have the mentality they can do anything they want and someone somewhere will figure out a way to get by regardless of what their policies are. Those people they will be able to tax to cover those who don't.

The democrats, especially the progressive's think there is always a big tit out there somewhere they will be able to suck on.

[Uncle Ted]

Without global agreements, it is stupid to unilaterally cut back on coal.

Also, we need more nuclear power plants.

Yep, W. Va and Wyo will just export their coal to china. Of course, a good share of China's pollution just ends up in California.

If there is one thing that France is doing right it is this, nuclear power. Texas had two new nuclear power plants under construction until about 4-6 years ago but stopped because of economically reasons.

[Pelado]

I have been hearing lately about the restoration of the manufacturing base here in America. Why, because energy costs are so low here they offset low wages elsewhere. Our competitors around the world have to be applauding President Obama right now.

I think they have the mentality they can do anything they want and someone somewhere will figure out a way to get by regardless of what their policies are. Those people they will be able to tax to cover those who don't.

The democrats, especially the progressive's think there is always a big tit out there somewhere they will be able to suck on.

Goatnapper is a progressive?

picgifs-mind-blown-1995183.jpg

[Blueintheface]

Texas had two new nuclear power plants under construction until about 4-6 years ago but stopped because of economically reasons.

Perhaps this should reside in the What is wrong with Texas thread?

[Uncle Ted]

Perhaps this should reside in the What is wrong with Texas thread?

Stop getting all DH'y on me.

[Blueintheface]

Stop getting all DH'y on me.

Indigo is one of the only colors I don't look good in.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let's all take a break from discussing conservative science denial so that we can laugh at liberal science denial. Excellent piece from the Daily Show.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/g1lev1/an-outbreak-of-liberal-idiocy?xrs=synd_facebook_060314_tds_0

[byu71]

President Obama is brilliant. Obamacare debacle, benghazi, VA problems. So he throws in a EPA change and a hostage trade. He has sapped all my energy. I can't focus on why I oppose he and the democrats. Too many things.

I have input overload. Sorry, don't know the scientific name.

[Jeff Lebowski]

President Obama is brilliant. Obamacare debacle, benghazi, VA problems. So he throws in a EPA change and a hostage trade. He has sapped all my energy. I can't focus on why I oppose he and the democrats. Too many things.

I have input overload. Sorry, don't know the scientific name.

Pretty sure it is called "doofus seventyoneicus"

[byu71]

Pretty sure it is called "doofus seventyoneicus"

you are living proof that a scientist can have a sense of humor. I am sure folks on the board are having to explain to colleagues why they just fell out their chair laughing.

[woot]

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/140609-arctic-ice-maps

Nat Geo: reduced arctic ice is the biggest change in their atlas since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

[byu71]

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/...rctic-ice-maps

Nat Geo: reduced arctic ice is the biggest change in their atlas since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

I wish the Dinosaurs had National Geographic. Imagine the changes we could have seen in their magazines.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A few week ago, I attended an international conference and one of the keynote speakers was a leading climate change expert. He gave a great talk and fortunately I took some notes for my CS amigos because I know you all just love to hear about this stuff.

1. He started out by addressing skepticism, but he only addressed it for a few minutes. He said that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so overwhelming at this point that it is hardly worth discussing. He put the certainty at 99%.

2. Lots of focus on CO2, but other gases (including aerosols) are playing a larger role than we once thought.

3. If we were to immediately cease all greenhouse gas emissions today, we would probably still have a 2 degree rise by 2100. If we make no change whatsoever, the rise will be about 4 deg.

4. Sea level rise in 2100 will be 0.5 - 0.75 m.

5. Determining the potential impact on nature (fish, animals, plants, etc) is complicated, but the impact will be more severe than it is on humans because humans are better equipped to adapt.

6. We are doing almost zero. Emissions are rising faster than ever.

7. Carbon capture and sequestration (taking CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and injecting deep into the ground) is so expensive that it will probably never be feasible. Coal has a bleak future. Nuclear energy has a bright future. Electric engines have a bright future.

8. At this point in time, we simply do not have the technical capability to solve this problem. I.e., there is no way we can halt emissions without destroying the economy unless we make significant advances/discoveries/breakthroughs in energy production, storage, etc.

9. He said that global warming is the worst possible public policy issue to manage. It would take a massive investment right now, but the benefits from that investment would not be seen for a long time. Furthermore, those that would have the biggest to lose in the short term (oil companies, etc.) are wealthy and powerful. Pretty low odds that anything significant will be done.

[byu71]

A few week ago, I attended an international conference and one of the keynote speakers was a leading climate change expert. He gave a great talk and fortunately I took some notes for my CS amigos because I know you all just love to hear about this stuff.

1. He started out by addressing skepticism, but he only addressed it for a few minutes. He said that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so overwhelming at this point that it is hardly worth discussing. He put the certainty at 99%.

2. Lots of focus on CO2, but other gases (including aerosols) are playing a larger role than we once thought.

3. If we were to immediately cease all greenhouse gas emissions today, we would probably still have a 2 degree rise by 2100. If we make no change whatsoever, the rise will be about 4 deg.

4. Sea level rise in 2100 will be 0.5 - 0.75 m.

5. Determining the potential impact on nature (fish, animals, plants, etc) is complicated, but the impact will be more severe than it is on humans because humans are better equipped to adapt.

6. We are doing almost zero. Emissions are rising faster than ever.

7. Carbon capture and sequestration (taking CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and injecting deep into the ground) is so expensive that it will probably never be feasible. Coal has a bleak future. Nuclear energy has a bright future. Electric engines have a bright future.

8. At this point in time, we simply do not have the technical capability to solve this problem. I.e., there is no way we can halt emissions without destroying the economy unless we make significant advances/discoveries/breakthroughs in energy production, storage, etc.

9. He said that global warming is the worst possible public policy issue to manage. It would take a massive investment right now, but the benefits from that investment would not be seen for a long time. Furthermore, those that would have the biggest to lose in the short term (oil companies, etc.) are wealthy and powerful. Pretty low odds that anything significant will be done.

I wish you would have listed point one last. Once I read that I realized the rest of it was going to be totally biased.

A LEADING climate CHANGE expert thinks it is a 99% certainty. Shocking.