Global Warming: It's Time to Panic - Comments Page 2

Article comments

— go to most recent comments Subscribe to comment RSS

• 26 - Doug Hunter

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:15 am

  More of the charade of fear:
  
  Esteemed global warming scientist Michael Mann, author of the famed hockey stick, has warned (Warning: link includes a scary picture a person in the water clinging to a pole) that Pacific islands including Tuvalu will dissappear... it's worse than we thought. These islands have already asked Australia and New Zealand to accept their population 11,000... climate refugees (part of the 15 million or so the IPCC claimed we would have by now) they also in a famous dog and pony show signed a treaty underwater in support of climate change wealth transfers.
  
  Facts: All but 3 of 27 studied low lying Pacific islands have remained stable or grew over 60 years... including 7 of Tuvalu's who grew during that time period. Tuvalu's population and size have grown.
  
  You're right though, facts are stubborn things... never let them get in the way of a good cause! If you care enough to do your research you'll notice this time after time after time that the scare stories are just that. The population is being manipulated with very misleading information, it's a sad thing... but no different from anything else in politics. It's almost as if we expect our leaders and elites to lie, the ends justify the means I guess.
  

• 27 - Doug Hunter

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:18 am

  Here's another article posted regarding the above study of low lying islands since most people will not be able to access the full study.
  
  Climate change 'increases island size'

• 28 - Brad Fregger

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:30 am

  It's hopeless trying to convince the Global Warming religious fanatics. They don't pay attention to scientific data anymore than the creationists. It's so sad that they are willing to give the world's governments billions of dollars, from the pockets of the middle class, to be used to accomplish nothing but the furthering of the progressive agenda.

• 29 - Fred

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:31 am

  I am old enough to remember when the conservatives told us that cigarette smoke was harmless and they had the science to prove it. Sometimes history really does repeat itself

• 30 - Doug Hunter

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:43 am

  #29
  
  The difference now is that you don't have to manufacture science, the government's best data doesn't even support the nonsense, although computer models do (models tend to predict whatever the person who programs them tells them to). Science has a history of generally being right, but not nearly always (especially when money is involved).
  

• 31 - Clavos

  Nov 16, 2012 at 9:12 am

  @Joseph Maresca:
  
  The report to which you link in comment #16 specifically excludes tropical cyclones (hurricanes), which were the topic of conversation up to that point, for lack of sufficient data (as Doug Hunter had just pointed out in comment #12). Here are the pertinent paragraphs from your linked report:
  
  For hurricanes and typhoons, robust detection of trends in Atlantic and western North Pacific tropical cyclone (TC) activity is significantly constrained by data heterogeneity and deficient quantification of internal variability. Attribution of past TC changes is further challenged by a lack of consensus on the physical linkages between climate forcing and TC activity. As a result, attribution of trends to anthropogenic forcing remains controversial. (emphasis added)

• 32 - Clavos

  Nov 16, 2012 at 9:15 am

  Al Gore isn't a climatologist.
  
  True. But he's still getting rich "playing one" in the movies and on TV.

• 33 - Clavos

  Nov 16, 2012 at 9:35 am

  In response to ombud's assertion that:
  
  Al Gore has made, by some estimates, nearly a BILLION dollars scamming the gullible public with businesses who get revenue through government mandates,
  
  Glenn sez, in #20:
  
  Riiiiiiiight. Care to show some kind of proof other than a wild claim off some Rabid Right wingnut blog?
  
  Well, Glenn, you're right, The New York Times, which is, admittedly about on a par with your average "right wingnut blog," seems to think that Algore has already made millions from his global warming warning activities, and if Cap and Trade becomes a reality, stands to make at least a billion.
  
  But, it's true, and everyone knows The NYT is only good for catching your parrot's poop in his cage.

• 34 - Clavos

  Nov 16, 2012 at 9:42 am

  Sorry, Forgot the NYT link in #33.
  
  Here 'tis.
  

• 35 - zingzing

  Nov 16, 2012 at 12:43 pm

  so "has made" and "stands to make" mean the same thing? not even time can constrain some men.

• 36 - Dr Dreadful

  Nov 16, 2012 at 3:32 pm

  Curious as to why it's OK for fossil energy execs to pursue wealth through oil trading but not OK for Al Gore to pursue it through cap and trade.

• 37 - Ombud

  Nov 16, 2012 at 4:24 pm

  Glenn,
  
  Because "climate scientists" are funded primarily through government grants, they are effectively political shills with PhD's.
  
  As far as real science goes, they are a step below parapsychologists. Parapsychology was never rocked by an enormous collusive fraud scandal like the climatologist community was.
  
  Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

• 38 - Ombud

  Nov 16, 2012 at 4:26 pm

  Doc -
  
  Because cap and trade is not a free market. It only exists because government mandates that it exists. It's a pretend market. Nothing more than a scam, really.

• 39 - Clavos

  Nov 16, 2012 at 6:11 pm

  so "has made" and "stands to make" mean the same thing? not even time can constrain some men.
  
  Obviously they don't and I didn't say they do.

• 40 - Zingzing

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:09 pm

  Great, so he hasn't made a billion dollars off of capntrade. Glad that's settled.
  
  Ombud: "Because "climate scientists" are funded primarily through government grants, they are effectively political shills with PhD's."
  
  So the global oil market is not controlled by politics? Come on. Interestingly, even when the Koch brothers paid some scientists to come up with experimental data to refute global warming, the scientists came back and said the data backed it up. Global warming is real, it's been proven every which way, and beyond that, it's inescapably logical. Even if you don't understand the science, you'd have to be one ignorant person to think that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere would have no affect upon the chemical composition and behavior of our atmosphere. That's just stupid. So stupid. Unbelievably so.

• 41 - Zingzing

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:17 pm

  Put bacon grease on your face every day, ombud. See what happens. Chemistry is real and it doesn't matter if it's your face or this planet.

• 42 - Glenn Contrarian

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm

  Ombud -
  
  Because "climate scientists" are funded primarily through government grants, they are effectively political shills with PhD's.
  
  You're forgetting all the climate scientists that work at all the major universities in America - none of them are federal employees. Some of them might get grants, but you're making a grand logical error by assuming they all do.
  
  Again, Ombud, none of these climate scientists are getting rich by telling you what their research shows...and ALL of them wish that they were wrong. Think about it, Ombud - if YOU knew something was happening that was going to wind up killing many, many people, and likely lead to wars, would you really choose a bundle of money to say that there's nothing to worry about? Would you? No? Then what makes you think that 98% of the climatologists on the ENTIRE PLANET would ALL agree to lie to the world about climate change? AND if you knew anything at all about grand conspiracies, you'd know that a secret conspiracy among thousands of people...doesn't stay secret very long.
  
  So which is more likely - that Big Oil is telling you what they hope is true (and along the way make many, many billions more by funding climate change denial), or that the VAST majority of climate scientists - who know more about the matter than anyone else, remember - are telling you what they WISH was false...and they're making no extra money by doing so.
  
  AND Ombud - with this SECRET CONSPIRACY that you seem to think exists among all the thousands of climatologists, do you not realize that if there were such a conspiracy, within a friggin' year one of them would have sold the story to Fox News for millions.
  
  But none have. Again, with the great majority of people, if they know that something's going to happen that's going to lead to great tragedy affecting entire nations, they're NOT going to keep their mouths shut or to lie about it.
  
  I just wish you'd FOLLOW THE MONEY and apply the same cynicism against Big Oil's climate change denial efforts as you do against the people who know more about the subject than anyone else.

• 43 - Deano

  Nov 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm

  In case you haven't been following the media in the real world, the "climategate" scandel was copiously investigated conclusively laid to rest with the conclusion that the accusations HAD NO MERIT.
  
  Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. These included the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the UK Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, an Independent Climate Change Email Review from the UK government, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation.
  
  By the way the comment that climate scientests are "one step below parapsychologist" is possibly the stupidest remark I've ever read on Blogcritics. Congratulations, you win the prize.

• 44 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 12:50 am

  Great, so he hasn't made a billion dollars off of capntrade.
  
  No. it hasn't been passed yet. But when it is, his company will be at the top of the C&T heap in terms of earnings. He has maneuvered to where when there is a market, his company will control much of it. And of course, he travels everwhere with his Powerpoint slide show advocating the establishment of a EU-style C&T system for America. Here's The NYT's take on it.

• 45 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 1:07 am

  One other thing worth mentioning, zing. When C&T is launched, the price of visrtually everything we need to live and acquire by purchasing from stores wil increase substantially in price -- everything. That which is not made with petroleum as an ingredient (and you'd be surprised how much is nowadays; for starters, everything with plastic or synthetic fibers in it -- most clothing -- even the majority of autos these days contain significant quantities of plastic), still has to be transported from origin to market. The cost of living will increase significantly for everyone -- especially all those poor people you libs are always feeling sorry for.
  
  Food for tought -- and yes, food will surely skyrocket.

• 46 - Zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 8:29 am

  Clavos, in case you haven't noticed, the price of food is already on the rise because of droughts and warmer than usual condititions. And it will only get worse, and food will get more expensive and there will be even less of it, and you'll wish something had been done. But it probably won't significantly affect YOU, so whatever.

• 47 - Zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 8:39 am

  Your number 45 seems rather speculative... And maybe alarmist. And what does "significantly" mean to you? Noticeably, maybe? Because similar legislation has been passed and implemented before and it hasn't caused anything much like what you describe, as far as I can tell.
  
  The day when doing anything with fossil fuels becomes more and more expensive is coming quickly, clavos, whether you want to see us prepared for that day or not. I can't believe how short-sighted you're being.

• 48 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 9:15 am

  Your number 45 seems rather speculative... And maybe alarmist.
  
  Obviously, I disagree. Based on the all-around pervasiveness of petroleum-based products in today's world. It's far more than just a fuel. Google it. You'll see what I mean.
  
  Significantly in this context means that enough of the stuff to make a noticeable difference in the price of an automobile -- by noticeable I mean we'll all at least bitch at the way prices are rising, and I think prices will rise enough across product lines (not just autos) to shut out people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
  
  The day when doing anything with fossil fuels becomes more and more expensive is coming quickly, clavos
  
  True enough, zing. I'm uncomfortable with accelerating it any further until we have developed viable options; the thing about Cap and Trade as it's been proposed so far is that it won't slow down the dumping of carbon into the atmosphere; it likely won't even prevent growth in the dumping; those who need to dump will buy the credits and continue to merrily dump all they do now. Those who don't will sell their credits to the dumpers -- nothing changes, except Al Gore and his investors will get incredibly richer.
  
  the price of food is already on the rise because of droughts and warmer than usual conditions. And it will only get worse, and food will get more expensive and there will be even less of it
  
  All true, and all likely to happen much more quickly under C&T.

• 49 - Zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 12:09 pm

  "Obviously, I disagree. Based on the all-around pervasiveness of petroleum-based products in today's world. It's far more than just a fuel. Google it. You'll see what I mean."
  
  I know that petroleum is used in a lot of products, clavos... What's your point? That the price of those things will rise? Hey, maybe we'll use less of those products and the price will fall again. Again, can you show me where this horrorshow has taken place because of similar policies? Or is this all speculation?
  
  "I'm uncomfortable with accelerating it any further until we have developed viable options"
  
  We have viable options. Other nations around the world are using them while we sit around with an oily thumb up our collective butt.
  
  "nothing changes, except Al Gore and his investors will get incredibly richer."
  
  That's not true at all. Those companies/industries that can make the switch do so, gaining a competitive advantage and showing the rest of us various ways it can be done. It's an incentive, and that's what fuels innovation.
  
  "All true, and all likely to happen much more quickly under C&T."
  
  In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, certainly not.

• 50 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm

  We have viable options. Other nations around the world are using them while we sit around with an oily thumb up our collective butt.
  
  Oh, well that's different; nobody told me. What are they?
  
  That's not true at all.
  
  I'm sorry, I don't understand that. What isn't true? And why isn't it?
  
  It's an incentive, and that's what fuels innovation.
  
  Again, I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What is an "incentive?" What is "it," not asking for the definition of an incentive; I think I know, but if I don't I can always look it up. How is "it" an incentive?

• 51 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 5:18 pm

  Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire?

• 52 - zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm

  "Oh, well that's different; nobody told me. What are they?"
  
  nuclear, biomass, solar, wind, etc. but you knew that... sweden, for one, is projected to free from oil by the end of this decade. can you imagine a united states that didn't depend upon oil? we could actually be a force for good in this world, rather than a nation going through the dt's, mumbling and scratching about how we just need a little oil, if only you could spare a barrel (all the while thinking about robbing you of your oil).
  
  denmark gets more than 20% of its energy from wind, while the uk and germany also get large chunks of their power supply from renewable resources. germany's had some troubles lately, but some of that can be put on the fact that they got spooked about nuclear energy after the thing in japan. the transfer away from using non-renewable sources to renewable sources isn't going to be bump-free, but it HAS to happen, and the sooner the better.
  
  "I'm sorry, I don't understand that. What isn't true? And why isn't it?"
  
  you said nothing will change except gore et al will get richer. nothing will change if we stay on the same damn road we've been on. things will change, and again, they HAVE to change, if we start rewarding investment in renewable energy and cutting carbon output.
  
  "How is "it" an incentive?"
  
  convert to renewable energy, have carbon credits to sell to those who don't. you get a step ahead and you have the credits to sell. do you really not get this?
  
  look at history. humans have risen to this type of challenge time and time again, and someone's always been there bitching about how impossible it all is. "the south will never survive without slavery!" etc. thing is, humanity HAS to confront this problem. even if global warming is some huge hoax perpetrated by the most mind-bogglingly huge collection of evil genius scientists and politicians (all of whom can be trusted with a secret), fossil fuels WILL run out. wouldn't you rather be prepared for that day than sitting there, grasping your last remaining drops of oil, wishing you'd only listened?

• 53 - Zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 6:13 pm

  As for your linked article, you do realize it's 3 years old, right? And as doc said earlier, what's wrong with him putting his money where his mouth is?

• 54 - Zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 pm

  Even before fossil fuels run out, there will come a day when the supply is not able to satisfy the demand, and on that day, the price of oil will start a climb it will never stop, and the renewable energy will be far more attractive. The nations that have invested in and created the infrastructure for renewable energy will be good, while the others will be lost. We can forestall that day by investing in renewable energy now.

• 55 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 7:32 pm

  So Sweden will be able to supply all its energy needs by the end of the decade? I'm not surprised: they tax their people the way american pols are afraid to. I have several cousins over there (In total I have several dozen relatives still in the old country) who are reasonably successful business people, making less than the $250K above which Obama wants to raise taxes, but still, they are in the six figures. Their tax rate? 45-55%. So yes, with that kind of tax income (the lowest rate for a blue collar worker can be as low as single digits, but commonly is in the teens), the Swedish gummint should have no problem achieving that goal.
  
  Besides the income tax, Sweden also levies a 25% Value Added Tax (VAT) on all purchases except food, some services (hotel rooms are taxed at only 12%) publications, and admissions to cultural events. Between the income and VAT taxes, my aforementioned cousins pay close to 80-85% of their annual income in taxes, so again, we could do the same here, and being a much larger country (Sweden's population is only 9.1 million -- less than Florida), we should also probably be able to cut out oil altogether, and likely even faster than the Swedes (not for nothing are we called Squareheads, most of us are dumb as a box of rocks).
  
  Shall we start lobbying our politicians to raise taxes to the 50% level? I'm for it, as long as everyone is raised equally, with no exceptions and no deductions, and the Kennedys would not be allowed to veto a windmill field off the Vineyard -- or anyplace else, for that matter. I can live on half of what I live on now and would be glad to do it for the betterment of the country.
  
  Think we can get the country behind it?
  
  Even before fossil fuels run out, there will come a day when the supply is not able to satisfy the demand, and on that day, the price of oil will start a climb it will never stop, and the renewable energy will be far more attractive.
  
  Of course. But they keep finding more and developing better ways to extract previously unreachable deposits, so that day is likely pretty far in the future. on that note, I have been hearing people (usually politicians) say that the oil is running out for more than fifty years now, and it ain't happened yet.
  
  As for your linked article, you do realize it's 3 years old, right?
  
  Uh huh.
  
  convert to renewable energy
  
  At the present time, how much of our energy demand can we satisfy with "renewables?" 10%? 20%? Not much more than that, I'm sure.
  
  you said nothing will change except gore et al will get richer Yes, i did, but what I was referring to was that cap and trade will not reduce the amount of carbon being released into the air; entities currently spewing tons of it will be able to continue simply by buying someone ese's allotment -- the same amount of carbon will still be released.
  
  denmark gets more than 20% of its energy from wind, while the uk and germany also get large chunks of their power supply from renewable resources.
  
  I wouldn't call 20% of the energy demand of a country the size of a small Texas cattle ranch a "large chunk," zing.
  
  we could actually be a force for good in this world
  
  Yeah, but we wouldn't; we're too mean-spirited, selfish, arrogant, stupid, and ignorant to do it.
  

• 56 - Zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm

  "Think we can get the country behind it?"
  
  Are you equating their tax rate with their ability to get off oil addiction? I dunno. There's a relation, I'm sure, but it's not as all-consuming as you make it out to be. Could we do what Sweden is doing? Maybe, but it would take longer. I'm not blind to the problems we'd face, but I think we could do it if we wanted, and we'd be better off if we started doing something about it.
  
  " it ain't happened yet."
  
  But it will, and in the meantime, it's destroying our environment. Some things were meant to stay buried. No god planted those things for our use, it's a waste product that we've converted into our destruction. It's our global political crux, and our environmental doom.
  
  "At the present time, how much of our energy demand can we satisfy with "renewables?" 10%? 20%? Not much more than that, I'm sure."
  
  And what was it 50 years ago? What makes you think we can't use renewable resources better? In another decade we can have those numbers up another 20%, and a decade after that, who knows.
  
  "entities currently spewing tons of it will be able to continue simply by buying someone ese's allotment -- the same amount of carbon will still be released."
  
  Yes, but other entities would stop, and they would become more profitable for having done so, while the dinosaurs would find their lot increasingly strenuous. Eventually, they'd evolve or die. You're thinking short term.
  
  "I wouldn't call 20% of the energy demand of a country the size of a small Texas cattle ranch a "large chunk," zing."
  
  Except it's not the size of a small cattle ranch, is it? I know America has different challenges than other countries, but fuck, we pay farmers NOT to grow things. What if we had those farms harvesting wind or solar energy? The answers aren't as easy as I make them out to be, but they certainly aren't as insurmountable as you make them out to be either.
  
  "Uh huh."
  
  And 3 years on, he's still not a carbon billionaire. Gore's a man willing to risk his fortune on what may be humanity's survival on this planet. If he was in it for the money, he'd invest in oil. He'll die long before his investments really pay off, and I hope to gawd that they do.

• 57 - Dr Dreadful

  Nov 17, 2012 at 10:11 pm

  It suits the anti-Gore narrative that cap and trade shouldn't do anything to mitigate environmental damage and should render everyone except a few (mysteriously and suddenly evil) investors worse off.
  
  Meanwhile, in the real world, C&T has been demonstrated to cut emissions, create jobs, reduce energy bills and generally do a whole bunch of positive things denialists claim it won't.

• 58 - Dr Dreadful

  Nov 17, 2012 at 10:12 pm

  Doug:
  
  I haven't forgotten you and will get round to responding to your 26 and 27, possibly tomorrow, more likely Monday.

• 59 - Zingzing

  Nov 17, 2012 at 10:58 pm

  Very good, doc. How can you deny it, clavos? It's good for us now, and it will be good for us in the future. Economically, scientifically, everything stands to gain except your politics... And I hardly think you'd let that stand in the way exept upon some retarded principle. This is real progress, and not just for other people, but for you as well. Accept it. Down is up, the left is right. Even if you don't agree on global warming, you must know that renewable energy is the future. You and people with your opinion on this will have to give in no matter what, so why not now?

• 60 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 11:28 pm

  And 3 years on, he's still not a carbon billionaire.
  
  Because we haven't instituted it yet. Once it starts, he will be -- and he'll make so much money he'll be able to continue his profligate use of 20 times as much energy just in his Nashville house than the average family of four consumes.

• 61 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 11:44 pm

  Meanwhile, in the real world, C&T has been demonstrated to cut emissions, create jobs, reduce energy bills and generally do a whole bunch of positive things denialists claim it won't.
  
  Doc, the "report"you linked to is written and issued by the very company that is running the C & T program in the states named, it's propaganda, not proof.

• 62 - Clavos

  Nov 17, 2012 at 11:50 pm

  Except it's not the size of a small cattle ranch, is it?
  
  It's pretty small, it's less than a thousand miles long by 300 wide, which makes it about twice the size of Florida, with half as many people. I have a lot of relatives there, and have visited a number of times; it's pretty small -- it's biggest town, Stockholm, has a population of about a third of Miami's -- that's small.

• 63 - Clavos

  Nov 18, 2012 at 12:07 am

  Obviously, I was talking about the wrong small country in # 62. Sweden is bigger than Denmark, but still very small.
  
  Denmark is, according to the CIA World Fact Book, less than twice the size of Massachusetts (but with fewer Americans, thankfully). Its population is 5.5 million, much less than Florida's (19 million, per 2010 census). The King Ranch in Texas, is 1289 sq. mi. Denmark is 16,600 sq. mi., Florida is 58,500 sq. mi.

• 64 - Clavos

  Nov 18, 2012 at 12:11 am

  Even if you don't agree on global warming, you must know that renewable energy is the future.
  
  zing, i wasn't arguing against renewable energy, just Cap & Trade, especially when carbon consumers (and competitors to the USA) on the order of China and India have no intention of adopting a similar program.

• 65 - Zingzing

  Nov 18, 2012 at 12:25 am

  But it's not a small cattle ranch, so let's pretending it is. Compare it to new jersey then, and tell me about the possibilities. (I have relatives in the region as well, and have visited, and yes, it is small, but so what? Your knowledge of petroleum products and Scandinavia is not unique, clavos...)
  
  ”Because we haven't instituted it yet. Once it starts, he will be..."
  
  But he's still not, right? And what do you object to if he does (for the third or fourth time)?
  
  " it's propaganda, not proof."
  
  It's data. Do you think they're just making it up?
  
  

• 66 - Zingzing

  Nov 18, 2012 at 12:27 am

  65 was for 62

• 67 - Zingzing

  Nov 18, 2012 at 12:38 am

  China is actually the biggest investor in renewable energy, as I guess they had better be. India would do well to catch up, and they know it.
  
  How do you think we'll ever wean ourselves off of fossil fuels if we keep up your fantasy that they'll last for long enough?
  
  (And the king's ranch, although large, isn't Denmark, nor Sweden, nor any other place. Is it having any problems?)

• 68 - Clavos

  Nov 18, 2012 at 7:06 am

  So, zing: are you prepared to junk all the millions of fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide? Don't forget that those include every aircraft in the world, as well as all the railroad locomotives and every ship in the world, too. Then there are places like Florida, where because of a lack of any other source, we generate our electrical power by burning dinosaurs as well.
  
  However, speaking of a lack of resources, I AM puzzled as to why no one is attempting to sink turbines just offshore of Florida's east coast to harness the power of the world's largest ocean current, the Gulfstream, which, here in South Florida, is a mere three miles from the beach. There's an enormous amount of water that has been flowing northward 24/7 for millenia at 3 to 5 knots, and yet I've never heard of anybody even trying to harness it.
  
  'Tis a puzzlement...

• 69 - Clavos

  Nov 18, 2012 at 8:53 am

  zing,
  
  Here's something of interest regarding the IEA's recent energy forecast.

• 70 - Dr Dreadful

  Nov 18, 2012 at 11:42 am

  Doc, the "report"you linked to is written and issued by the very company that is running the C & T program in the states named, it's propaganda, not proof.
  
  By that criterion, every annual report of every corporation in the world is also propaganda. Would you care to address the data rather than disparage the source?
  
  

• 71 - Clavos

  Nov 18, 2012 at 5:05 pm

  By that criterion, every annual report of every corporation in the world is also propaganda.
  
  Don't know about the rest of the world, but in the USA they pretty much are, yes.

• 72 - Clavos

  Nov 18, 2012 at 5:07 pm

  If you make the decision to invest in a company solely on a review of their annual report, you're taking a pretty good risk...

• 73 - Dr Dreadful

  Nov 18, 2012 at 6:23 pm

  At least reading the damn thing ought to give the investor a better idea of the degree of risk.

• 74 - Zingzing

  Nov 18, 2012 at 10:10 pm

  "So, zing: are you prepared to junk all the millions of fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide?"
  
  No, but it's time to start phasing them out. What with china and India demanding more and more cars... Have you been to china? I'm sure you are aware that you can stare directly at the sun there, given the amount of pollution.
  
  "Don't forget that those include every aircraft in the world, as well as all the railroad locomotives and every ship in the world, too."
  
  I'm pretty sure that railways can be run other ways, as seen in Japan and Seattle. That said, I've seen more than a few electric trollies come off their lines, which is no fun for anyone. But you're right in saying that aircraft and ships are going to have to be run on gas, at least for now.
  
  "Then there are places like Florida, where because of a lack of any other source, we generate our electrical power by burning dinosaurs as well."
  
  In the sunshine state? For shame.
  
  "However, speaking of a lack of resources, I AM puzzled as to why no one is attempting to sink turbines just offshore of Florida's east coast to harness the power of the world's largest ocean current, the Gulfstream, which, here in South Florida, is a mere three miles from the beach. There's an enormous amount of water that has been flowing northward 24/7 for millenia at 3 to 5 knots, and yet I've never heard of anybody even trying to harness it."
  
  If you've had the idea, I'm sure someone's working on it. They should be.
  
  As for your linked article, I'm sure there is more oil down there to get at, but there's an end game, and since it's pretty obvious that burning that shit isn't healthy, we should look at other ways to create energy, and only use oil for things we can't power in other ways. Even if it's pulled out of the ground here, we don't control it anyway...

• 75 - Dr Dreadful

  Nov 19, 2012 at 12:56 pm

  Doug, regarding your Pacific islands:
  
  In such a vast and complex system as the global climate and biosphere, of course there are going to be unforeseen effects. Some things are not going to happen quite as predicted.
  
  Just because some coral islands are growing, this does not make the news good. The habitat of living coral is, as you know, confined to within a few metres of the ocean surface. As sea level rises, so will the coral, taking root on the bones of its dead antecedents.
  
  Unfortunately, like a Jenga tower, there is always a tipping point. Coral is under pressure from multiple effects of climate change such as increased ocean temperature and acidity. Entire reef systems in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and elsewhere have died over the last few years.
  
  Despite your protests to the contrary, you are cherry-picking. You're saying, "Look, the alarmists predicted this would happen and it hasn't!" Many of your sources are regional, some are disputable, some you're treating as a foregone conclusion (flood frequency doesn't seem to be increasing now therefore it never will), and all are just tiny parts of the big picture.
  
  The bottom line is that we are seeing a whole raft of stuff that we would expect to see if warming caused by fossil fuel emissions was happening.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.