The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (2 Viewers)

[3C's]

:smh:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/08/kentucky-gop-lawmaker-defends-coal-we-all-agree-mars-is-the-same-temperature-as-earth/

 

[jonessed]

It's just a slippery way of saying the same thing. Oh yeah, man made global warming is happening, but I am skeptical of how much and how much man has to do with it yada yada.

Still seems correct to characterize you as a denier lIMO.

So no reasoned arguments allowed. Caricatures only, please.

Got it.

It would be a reasoned argument if those of you who make it spent the same amount of time attacking GW deniers as you do attacking what you term to be alarmists. Then I'd truly believe you were actually carving a middle ground. But you don't. Every one of you who makes this argument spend all of your time attacking only those who are concerned about GW- because your goal is exactly the same as the rest of the deniers; to prevent any government attempt to deal with this issue.

 

[fatness]

:smh:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/08/kentucky-gop-lawmaker-defends-coal-we-all-agree-mars-is-the-same-temperature-as-earth/

A coal plant-owning Kentucky Republican offered an out-of-this-world argument against new EPA carbon emissions regulations.

State Sen. Brandon Smith (R-Hazard) joined other lawmakers in attacking the Obama administration and EPA regulations July 2 in a meeting of the Interim Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment.

“I won’t get into the debate about climate change,” Smith said. “But I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”

 

[joffer]

The stupid is strong with that one

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Iceland leads the world in renewable energy and is the first country to supply all electricity from renewable sources.

 

[joffer]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Ice_sheet_highs_lows_and_loss

 

[jon_mx]

Iceland leads the world in renewable energy and is the first country to supply all electricity from renewable sources.

Well duh. Not ever country has an endless supply of ice to draw its power from.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Looks like one of the grand jurors was actually actively participating as a Democratic Party Delegate.

Yeah, nothing stinks about this at all.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Looks like one of the grand jurors was actually actively participating as a Democratic Party Delegate.

Yeah, nothing stinks about this at all.

You've solved global warming with one post!! Well done.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Looks like one of the grand jurors was actually actively participating as a Democratic Party Delegate.

Yeah, nothing stinks about this at all.

You've solved global warming with one post!! Well done.

ooof!

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Looks like one of the grand jurors was actually actively participating as a Democratic Party Delegate.

Yeah, nothing stinks about this at all.

You've solved global warming with one post!! Well done.

thats his specialty

 

[Thunderlips]

Iron Sheik adds another dimension to the discussion:

1. There are those who don't believe global warming exists.

2. There are those who don't believe man made global warming exists.

3. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but not enough to make a difference.

4. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but it's not a bad thing.

And so on. Is it wrong for me to group all of these together? They're all similar in that they (1) want no action taken (2) apparently believe that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are deliberately lying, just plain wrong, politically motivated, or all 3.

How about:

5. There are those of us who believe that we've shoe-horned our society so tightly into what we thought was going to be a constant climate that any small deviation (man made or not) will cost us millions and millions of dollars and potentially a significant number of lives?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Ozone-Depleting Compound Found In Unexpected Concentrations Despite Ban

 

[jon_mx]

Ozone-Depleting Compound Found In Unexpected Concentrations Despite Ban

From a global warming perspective, this is a good thing.

 

[Sand]

Another explanation for the lack of warming lately. So the question is are we between warming periods or is this stasis period the norm?

In other news this again shows how little we know about the dynamics of climate on our planet.

 

[Josie Maran]

Another explanation for the lack of warming lately. So the question is are we between warming periods or is this stasis period the norm?

In other news this again shows how little we know about the dynamics of climate on our planet.

Cool. Let's start throwing more #### into our air and water since it doesn't really matter.

 

[Maelstrom]

There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, our new research shows....

We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results.

Article the above quotes are from: http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911

Original study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

From the study:

The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000).During the period January 1950 to June 2010 there were 11 periods when global 10-year temperatures declined. Our study shows that in the absence of global warming an average of 25 such periods could have been expected. There is only a 0.01 percent chance of observing the recorded 11 events (or fewer) in the absence of recent global warming. Even when GHG emissions are included, the observed number of cooling periods is low compared with an average of 15 events simulated. Thus, rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring (Plimer, 2009), the observed number of cooling periods reinforces the case in support of recent global warming due to human influence.

 

[jonessed]

I think their outcome is generally accepted around here. They are simply saying that there is a very high probability that anthropogenic GHG emissions are associated with global warming. At least that's where they get the 99.999% probability figure.

 

[Maelstrom]

I think their outcome is generally accepted around here. They are simply saying that there is a very high probability that anthropogenic GHG emissions are associated with global warming. At least that's where they get the 99.999% probability figure.

They also strongly suggest that it is due to human influence, which is not as generally accepted.

 

[jonessed]

I think their outcome is generally accepted around here. They are simply saying that there is a very high probability that anthropogenic GHG emissions are associated with global warming. At least that's where they get the 99.999% probability figure.

They also strongly suggest that it is due to human influence, which is not as generally accepted.

Maybe, but it's not something they appear to be directly trying to estimate.

 

[jon_mx]

That is very cute, but also junk science. Statistical analysis is only as good as the assumptions that go into them. The journal appears to be one with a particular agenda as the title indicates and it would be interesting to learn if any peer review process is utilized. There is just too much we do not know about climate to come to any conclusion that this analysis comes to. The abstract indicates only a few other factors were accounted for. It fails the smell test.

 

[Jim11]

Like George Costanza, here we have the opposite.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-data-backs-ice-age-prediction/

As the United Nations prepares for its 2014 Climate Summit in New York this month with an agenda to advance a new carbon-emissions regulatory agreement to supersede the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Russian scientist who correctly predicted the lack of global warming over the past 19 years has gained new scientific support for his belief that Earth is in the beginning of a prolonged ice age.

 

[cstu]

Another explanation for the lack of warming lately. So the question is are we between warming periods or is this stasis period the norm?

In other news this again shows how little we know about the dynamics of climate on our planet.

Cool. Let's start throwing more #### into our air and water since it doesn't really matter.

CO2 is not '####'.

 

[cstu]

:smh:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/08/kentucky-gop-lawmaker-defends-coal-we-all-agree-mars-is-the-same-temperature-as-earth/

A coal plant-owning Kentucky Republican offered an out-of-this-world argument against new EPA carbon emissions regulations.

State Sen. Brandon Smith (R-Hazard) joined other lawmakers in attacking the Obama administration and EPA regulations July 2 in a meeting of the Interim Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment.

“I won’t get into the debate about climate change,” Smith said. “But I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”

You can't make this #### up.

 

[cstu]

Iron Sheik adds another dimension to the discussion:

1. There are those who don't believe global warming exists.

2. There are those who don't believe man made global warming exists.

3. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but not enough to make a difference.

4. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but it's not a bad thing.

And so on. Is it wrong for me to group all of these together? They're all similar in that they (1) want no action taken (2) apparently believe that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are deliberately lying, just plain wrong, politically motivated, or all 3.

How about not as bad of thing as is being claimed?

I'm a huge proponent of renewable energy, but not primarily for GW reasons. If we do what we should and get off of fossil fuels then the GW problem takes care of itself.

 

[Sand]

Iron Sheik adds another dimension to the discussion:

1. There are those who don't believe global warming exists.

2. There are those who don't believe man made global warming exists.

3. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but not enough to make a difference.

4. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but it's not a bad thing.

And so on. Is it wrong for me to group all of these together? They're all similar in that they (1) want no action taken (2) apparently believe that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are deliberately lying, just plain wrong, politically motivated, or all 3.

How about not as bad of thing as is being claimed?

I'm a huge proponent of renewable energy, but not primarily for GW reasons. If we do what we should and get off of fossil fuels then the GW problem takes care of itself.

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

 

[Josie Maran]

Another explanation for the lack of warming lately. So the question is are we between warming periods or is this stasis period the norm?

In other news this again shows how little we know about the dynamics of climate on our planet.

Cool. Let's start throwing more #### into our air and water since it doesn't really matter.

CO2 is not '####'.

In the amounts we're spewing it into the atmosphere, it most certainly is.

 

[Varmint]

In 2007, Al Gore predicted "it (the polar ice cap) could be GONE is as little as seven years".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPLD8aylRiw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapMyAvbsbg

Someone publishes a picture of a polar bear on a small piece of ice and all of a sudden..."THE POLAR BEARS HAVE NO PLACE TO LIVE!!"

The bottom line is that Global Warming=$$$$$.


I'm old enough to remember when the big threat was global cooling.
"WE'RE HEADING FOR ANOTHER ICE AGE!!'

First, cooling....then warming.....now.....climate change.
Duh....the climate on this berg has been "changing" since day one and will continue to change whether the cows fart or not.
If "climate change" were to be absolutely accepted as bunk, every scientist who draws grant money from studying "climate change" would have to find something else to study that pays.

If "climate change" were to be absolutely accepted as bunk, every business that makes a nickel from "green technology" would go broke...some already have.

Every study that "proves" global warming has been based solely on computer models....none of which have been correct.

The fact is that the planet has not warmed, not even a fraction of a degree, over the past 15 years.

Talk about "scare tactics".

The final word goes to George:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

 

[timschochet]

THANKS Varmint! Awesome as ALWAYS!!

 

[Maelstrom]

Like George Costanza, here we have the opposite.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-data-backs-ice-age-prediction/

As the United Nations prepares for its 2014 Climate Summit in New York this month with an agenda to advance a new carbon-emissions regulatory agreement to supersede the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Russian scientist who correctly predicted the lack of global warming over the past 19 years has gained new scientific support for his belief that Earth is in the beginning of a prolonged ice age.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

 

[Maelstrom]

You have to separate what the media says from what scientists say. Scientists put out a paper, and the media reads the abstract, then comes up with a headline they think will draw eyeballs and readers. Often the headline and the article is extremely sensational. And Gore? He isn't a scientist, I don't care what he ever said. I care about the science, and from what I can tell (as a layman) the science is stating that climate change is happening, and it is related to man-made activities.

Climate scientists have traditionally looked at climate over long periods - 30 years or more. However the media obsession with short term trends has focused attention on the past 15-16 years. Short term trends are much more complex because they can be affected by many factors which cancel out over longer periods. In a recent interview James Hansen noted "If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability".

 

[timschochet]

Like George Costanza, here we have the opposite.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-data-backs-ice-age-prediction/

As the United Nations prepares for its 2014 Climate Summit in New York this month with an agenda to advance a new carbon-emissions regulatory agreement to supersede the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Russian scientist who correctly predicted the lack of global warming over the past 19 years has gained new scientific support for his belief that Earth is in the beginning of a prolonged ice age.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

You have to separate what the media says from what scientists say. Scientists put out a paper, and the media reads the abstract, then comes up with a headline they think will draw eyeballs and readers. Often the headline and the article is extremely sensational. And Gore? He isn't a scientist, I don't care what he ever said. I care about the science, and from what I can tell (as a layman) the science is stating that climate change is happening, and it is related to man-made activities.

Climate scientists have traditionally looked at climate over long periods - 30 years or more. However the media obsession with short term trends has focused attention on the past 15-16 years. Short term trends are much more complex because they can be affected by many factors which cancel out over longer periods. In a recent interview James Hansen noted "If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability".

I wouldn't bother with Varmint. He's relying on World Net Daily for his science.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

Too bad that Obama wasn't Jimmy Carter II like you guys promised. Oh well!

 

[Varmint]

Like George Costanza, here we have the opposite.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-data-backs-ice-age-prediction/

As the United Nations prepares for its 2014 Climate Summit in New York this month with an agenda to advance a new carbon-emissions regulatory agreement to supersede the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Russian scientist who correctly predicted the lack of global warming over the past 19 years has gained new scientific support for his belief that Earth is in the beginning of a prolonged ice age.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

You have to separate what the media says from what scientists say. Scientists put out a paper, and the media reads the abstract, then comes up with a headline they think will draw eyeballs and readers. Often the headline and the article is extremely sensational. And Gore? He isn't a scientist, I don't care what he ever said. I care about the science, and from what I can tell (as a layman) the science is stating that climate change is happening, and it is related to man-made activities.

Climate scientists have traditionally looked at climate over long periods - 30 years or more. However the media obsession with short term trends has focused attention on the past 15-16 years. Short term trends are much more complex because they can be affected by many factors which cancel out over longer periods. In a recent interview James Hansen noted "If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability".

I wouldn't bother with Varmint. He's relying on World Net Daily for his science.

Of course....don't listen to anyone who disagrees....

Stick with CNBC and CNN....they're the only source of "facts that you'll agree with.

You see...and there's the rub.

The first thing you do when you read an article is see who the source is.

If it isn't a left leaning liberal rag, you'll immediately discount it as "radical right"

The problem is, CNBC, CNN, etc....WON'T report anything other than what the left wants them to post.

Most of what I post is nothing more than a rebuttal of what was originally reported....you know...the truth about the lie you believe.

I post a video of Al Gore saying something seven years ago that has been PROVEN false...yet you don't see that part of it.

MAYBE...just maybe...if he was wrong about that....he just MAY be wrong about something else.?? maybe??

You think MAYBE...that someone is making money off of "global warming"???? Maybe??

Oh hell no.

The left spews it....you gobble it up and regurgitate it.

I cannot believe anyone LIKES being lied to and won't even TRY to find out the truth.

Hey...it's your hole in the sand...go ahead and bury your empty head in it.

I still haven't seen a single "global warming" prediction that wasn't based on a computer model.

I guess that THIS is all I need to see to believe that the ice caps are melting...

http://www.earthintransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/polar-bears-putin-1.jpg

Hey...what else could it be?

 

[Josie Maran]

Good work here, Varmint.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

Too bad that Obama wasn't Jimmy Carter II like you guys promised. Oh well!

You're right, he isn't Jimmy Carter II. He's even worse.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You're right, he isn't Jimmy Carter II. He's even worse.

Few have set up the nation for success better than Carter. Too little, too late for his reputation and we proudly killed off the shameful alternative energy policies he pursued after his deregulation of domestic oil production created a counter productive short term boom.

 

[Sand]

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

Too bad that Obama wasn't Jimmy Carter II like you guys promised. Oh well!

Jimmy? You mean the guy who started the DoE for the stated purpose of controlling and reducing the cost of oil? Yeah, we see how that turned out.

Honestly I don't know of a president whose energy policy actually made sense, though I didn't follow this stuff further back than W and O. No doubt that W and O were awful (though O has been significantly worse).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

Too bad that Obama wasn't Jimmy Carter II like you guys promised. Oh well!

Jimmy? You mean the guy who started the DoE for the stated purpose of controlling and reducing the cost of oil? Yeah, we see how that turned out.

Honestly I don't know of a president whose energy policy actually made sense, though I didn't follow this stuff further back than W and O. No doubt that W and O were awful (though O has been significantly worse).

Jimmy's goal was always conservation, And that turned out to be a complete failure as telling Americans to conserve turned out to be a pretty idiotic assessment of the maturity of the masses. The secondary goal was energy independence but that "clear and present danger" of the "moral equivalent of war" was equally an unnecessary burden on Americans.

And since Carter there was no energy policy other than "cheap oil" until W so you didn't miss anything.

Now in a "climate change" thread lots of Carter's energy proposals (ex. gasifiying coal into gasoline) would not have helped - or even made things worst (burning wood) but from your perspective Carter was the last president that really made research into alternatives energy a real priority.

 

[Sand]

Now up to 52 explanations from the experts on the cause of the GW pause.

But the science is still settled, so we can all sleep soundly.

 

[timschochet]

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

Too bad that Obama wasn't Jimmy Carter II like you guys promised. Oh well!

Jimmy? You mean the guy who started the DoE for the stated purpose of controlling and reducing the cost of oil? Yeah, we see how that turned out.

Honestly I don't know of a president whose energy policy actually made sense, though I didn't follow this stuff further back than W and O. No doubt that W and O were awful (though O has been significantly worse).

Serious question Sand, because I know that you are very knowledgeable about energy and new energy sources: what should the President (any President) do right now that you would define as a good or great energy policy?

 

[Sand]

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

Too bad that Obama wasn't Jimmy Carter II like you guys promised. Oh well!

Jimmy? You mean the guy who started the DoE for the stated purpose of controlling and reducing the cost of oil? Yeah, we see how that turned out.

Honestly I don't know of a president whose energy policy actually made sense, though I didn't follow this stuff further back than W and O. No doubt that W and O were awful (though O has been significantly worse).

Serious question Sand, because I know that you are very knowledgeable about energy and new energy sources: what should the President (any President) do right now that you would define as a good or great energy policy?

Right now? Open up ANWR, the Cali coast, and other federal lands. Use those taxes to do much more fundamental energy research (with a nice side effect of driving oil prices down for our friends in Russia, Venezuela, and the middle east). Fusion, solar, energy storage, geothermal (drilling technology), etc. There are a few outfits out there that I believe are within striking distance of extractable greater than unity fusion devices. Let's get them there.

As a side note I'd do my best to shut down solar concentrators and wind farms. Funny how we have effectively killed tens of millions of people by shutting down DDT usage in the name of saving birds but allow these technologies to kill huge numbers of birds. A national travesty.

 

[timschochet]

Thank you. Actually much of that makes sense to me. I have a few concerns, however:

1. Since I live in California, I'm concerned about opening up our coastline to more drilling in light of potential spills.

2. There seems to be a huge disagreement about ANWR. Environmentalists argue that it there isn't enough oil there to make any difference, and that it will damage what they consider to be a national treasure. I have no idea which side is right here.

3. You state that more drilling will lower oil prices world wide, but many economists argue differently. They theorize that however much more we drill, countries like Saudi Arabia will simply withhold their own flow so as to keep the world prices unaffected. Again, I'm not sure whose right here.

I do tend to agree with you that we should give up investing in solar concentrators and wind. It seems like we're throwing good money after bad.

 

[jon_mx]

ANWR a national treasure...

One of the most inhabitable places on earth where none of those nuts who call it a national treasure will ever step foot there

 

[DrJ]

It's unusually cold here for September. Can we get this "pause" over with?

 

[Sand]

Thank you. Actually much of that makes sense to me. I have a few concerns, however:

1. Since I live in California, I'm concerned about opening up our coastline to more drilling in light of potential spills.

2. There seems to be a huge disagreement about ANWR. Environmentalists argue that it there isn't enough oil there to make any difference, and that it will damage what they consider to be a national treasure. I have no idea which side is right here.

3. You state that more drilling will lower oil prices world wide, but many economists argue differently. They theorize that however much more we drill, countries like Saudi Arabia will simply withhold their own flow so as to keep the world prices unaffected. Again, I'm not sure whose right here.

I do tend to agree with you that we should give up investing in solar concentrators and wind.It seems like we're throwing good money after bad.

1. You people on the left coast are #######.

2. ANWR plus a lot of other locations. This administration has squelched a massive number of areas.

3. Same price plus lower volume = less money for them. I'd also allow the construction of large LNG plants on the coast to ship to Europe as an extra #### you to Putin and remove that choke hold he has over Europe and their NG supply.

 

[tommyboy]

Which is why if I ran the chicken coop I'd revoke all monies associated with climate research and throw it into fundamental energy production research. Fact is every world economy is going to use the cheapest form of energy they can and the US isn't even close to the cop CO2 producer anymore. We don't control this any longer. Find a technology(ies) that will supplant fossil fuels for many applications and we'll do many things: stop this climate change discussion crap, add immeasurably to the US wealth and job situation, bankrupt a lot of states that we'd love to see go away - Venezuela, the middle east, Russia, etc.

Sadly the fact is the last two presidents have been beyond horrid in our energy policies.

And just to stir the pot, here's a good pithy glob post about the state of climate science.

Too bad that Obama wasn't Jimmy Carter II like you guys promised. Oh well!

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-Qcs2JQCblk8/Tk5tMTJqKsI/AAAAAAAAQF4/JWLswYKsHTk/Jimmy-Carter-Miss-Me-Yet_thumb9.jpg?imgmax=800

 

[Jim11]

It's unusually cold here for September. Can we get this "pause" over with?

It's been unusually cold here all year. Just a pause, I suppose; Al couldn't possibly be wrong.

OTOH:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2740788/Global-warming-pause-19-years-Data-reveals-Earth-s-temperature-remained-CONSTANT-1995.html

'Global warming has been on pause for 19 years': Study reveals Earth's temperature has remained almost CONSTANT since 1995

 

[joffer]

It's unusually cold here for September. Can we get this "pause" over with?

It's been unusually cold here all year. Just a pause, I suppose; Al couldn't possibly be wrong.OTOH:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2740788/Global-warming-pause-19-years-Data-reveals-Earth-s-temperature-remained-CONSTANT-1995.html

'Global warming has been on pause for 19 years': Study reveals Earth's temperature has remained almost CONSTANT since 1995

 

[Maelstrom]

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.