Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[YOhio]

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.

Maybe I'm being super naive here, but 4 degrees doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Darn it. I wish you could have gotten past item 1. I was hoping to get your typical insightful and thoughtful response.

[byu71]

Darn it. I wish you could have gotten past item 1. I was hoping to get your typical insightful and thoughtful response.

Heck, you got my insightful and thoughtful response for item 1. If you think about it, it covers all the other points too.

If you didn't have such a look down your nose at my intelligence attitude, you might learn something.

Would you think more favorably toward me if I let you know I taught accounting at Jr. College one year? I do have an academic background.

[YOhio]

If you didn't have such a look down your nose at my intelligence attitude, you might learn something.

lol. I doubt it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Maybe I'm being super naive here, but 4 degrees doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

We will be dead by then! No big deal.

I thought the last two points were the most interesting part of the talk, especially #8. He didn't argue that we need to simply need to convince people to change behaviors. Rather, he argued that until we make some major technological breakthroughs, making a significant dent in emissions just isn't feasible. That's an angle you don't hear much, but I think he is correct.

[Uncle Ted]

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.

Someone should tell this to Uncle Harry...

Nuclear Waste Will Never Be Laid To Rest At Yucca Mountain

[...]
The political undertone: Since 1987, when Congress first approved the study of Yucca Mountain, the American people have contributed $31 million — a process in which the state of Nevada fully complied, and one in which it has received plenty of financial benefits. But the folks there — and it’s hard to blame them — don’t want 70,000 plus tons of nuclear waste in their backyard.


So, President Obama joined forces with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to “kill” Yucca Mountain in 2008. In 2009, Reid’s former staffer, Greg Jaczko, headed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Energy Department then nixed the licensing process in 2010.


But this past week, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-to-1 decision that the nuclear regulators must follow the law. Doing otherwise is simply an act of defiance. A year earlier, this same court had ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could not extend the current interim storage facilities from 30-years to 60-years without more detailed environmental analyses. Today’s storage is on-site and in above-ground concrete-encased casks.


In 1983, nuclear energy companies such as Dominion Resources D -0.61%, Duke Energy DUK -0.65% Entergy ETR -1.3% Corp, Exelon Corp. and Southern Co. began signing contracts and paying fees to enable a permanent waste disposal site. In 2002, Yucca Mountain became the designated site. Today, electric utility customers pay a fraction of their bill towards the study of this site.


Beside the political obstacles, engineers have expressed concerns that some of the spent nuclear material could eventually escape from its encasements and cause damage to ground water supplies in the area. That may be true but it does not obviate the need to comply with the law and to officially complete the analysis as to whether Yucca Mountain would be a viable location.
[...]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilve...ucca-mountain/

Maybe we all can ship our nuclear waste to sit on the federal land that Clive Bundy turns his cattle out on. Two problems solved!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Someone should tell this to Uncle Harry...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilve...ucca-mountain/

Maybe we all can ship our nuclear waste to sit on the federal land that Clive Bundy turns his cattle out on. Two problems solved!

I am a big fan of nuclear energy, and I think Yucca Mountain is a terrible idea that should be scrapped.

[Uncle Ted]

I am a big fan of nuclear energy, and I think Yucca Mountain is a terrible idea that should be scrapped.

Where does one store their nuclear waste for the next 10,000 years? Wait... Utah has lots of under used Federal land.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Where does one store their nuclear waste for the next 10,000 years? Wait... Utah has lots of under used Federal land.

On-site storage has less risk than shipping it cross-country by truck or rail. And we have discovered ways to reuse much of the old waste. Furthermore, we have enough waste to fill the entire capacity of Yucca Mtn instantly. It's a dumb idea.

[Uncle Ted]

On-site storage has less risk than shipping it cross-country by truck or rail. And we have discovered ways to reuse much of the old waste. Furthermore, we have enough waste to fill the entire capacity of Yucca Mtn instantly. It's a dumb idea.

And when there is no more room on-site we could always just pay the Italian mafia to get rid of it for us... no questions asked.

[The_Douger]

We will be dead by then! No big deal.

I thought the last two points were the most interesting part of the talk, especially #8. He didn't argue that we need to simply need to convince people to change behaviors. Rather, he argued that until we make some major technological breakthroughs, making a significant dent in emissions just isn't feasible. That's an angle you don't hear much, but I think he is correct.

Even if you could get some big changes with technology, getting all the countries in the world on the same page with it would be a nightmare.

[creekster]

I thought the last two points were the most interesting part of the talk, especially #8. He didn't argue that we need to simply need to convince people to change behaviors. Rather, he argued that until we make some major technological breakthroughs, making a significant dent in emissions just isn't feasible. That's an angle you don't hear much, but I think he is correct.

I think so, too. But if that conclusion and the first point are both equally well-supported, isn't that a rather complete condemnation of current policy initiatives? IOW, even though you recoil in horror at the stupidity of those who question the existence of anthropogenic warming, in the end both this speaker and the simpletons would likely choose similar policy approaches under the current economic and technological reality.

In fact, going farther, isn't he really saying we need to let the market take care of this situation? See? science is bringing us all together on this issue!

[Moliere]

We will be dead by then! No big deal.

I thought the last two points were the most interesting part of the talk, especially #8. He didn't argue that we need to simply need to convince people to change behaviors. Rather, he argued that until we make some major technological breakthroughs, making a significant dent in emissions just isn't feasible. That's an angle you don't hear much, but I think he is correct.

The biggest problem we have is that our current energy source is relatively cheap. If an energy source that is cheaper came along you'd see a wholesale move to it. In some regards this is exactly what is happening with natural gas. Electricity just ins't economical right now, and it's dirty since a lot of it is powered by fossil fuels.

The bit about oil companies is true, but keep in mind that the big major oil companies (Exxon, BP, Shell) are dwarfed by the state-owned oil companies in many other countries (Russia, China, Venezuela, etc.). It's not so much the big evil oil companies fault (it is somewhat) as it is the governments of many developed and developing countries.

[PaloAltoCougar]

As to point one, is the consensus that the "A" element of AGW is the primary cause. Is it even possible to allocate the degree of causality among, say, the "A" element and the natural elements (e.g., sun spots, natural atmospheric changes, BYU's football fortunes, etc.)? I'm not looking for an argument here, as I'll defer to the collective wisdom of the scientific community; I'm just unclear on the degree.

The other points were also interesting and very sensible to me. I've never understood why the primary focus (and the allocation of many billions) has been to get emissions levels back to say, 1995, when even those levels are apparently acknowledged to have been toxic. I'd support going nuclear as much as possible, working on more advanced technologies, preparing better for the apparently inevitable temperature rise, and joining the Big 12.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The biggest problem we have is that our current energy source is relatively cheap. If an energy source that is cheaper came along you'd see a wholesale move to it. In some regards this is exactly what is happening with natural gas. Electricity just ins't economical right now, and it's dirty since a lot of it is powered by fossil fuels.

Yeah, that is another way of stating the technology problem.

The bit about oil companies is true, but keep in mind that the big major oil companies (Exxon, BP, Shell) are dwarfed by the state-owned oil companies in many other countries (Russia, China, Venezuela, etc.). It's not so much the big evil oil companies fault (it is somewhat) as it is the governments of many developed and developing countries.

Agreed. That is why I said "oil companies, etc.".