What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[ThumperX]

No, the assumption is that the industrial revolution and emergence of the fossil fuel economy has increased the temperature of the planet.

Don't leave out cattle.

 

[RRR70]

but this is another example of a whole new industry poised to make a killing from climate change legislation.

I know we'll get there. That's not the point; the point is there is incredible financial gain for somebody in the policies being implemented in the name of climate change. Pierre didn't seem to see that.

You may got something there.


Just one of the many examples. Always follow the money.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#3f19ed6f3750

 

[louemc]

Don't leave out cattle.

MEAT Eaters, And Baby Breeders, are the root of all our problems.

 

[n10sive]

I don't see any greater financial gain than the current fossil fuel industry. Except one is detrimentally worst for the environment while the other one has the oppurnitnity to provide future generations with clean renewable fuel.

I think you are ignoring the obvious advances in technology in the fossil fuel arena. Stack technologies along with emission controls and engine technology are removing more pollutants and producing more clean energy per gallon of fuel than ever.

I grew up in Southern California. The native Indians of the area called Los Angeles "The Valley of Smoke," even before it was urbanized, due to the geographical makeup of the area. As a kid, LA looked like modern day Beijing China. Today the air is mostly clear and blue.

We as "humans" have come a LONG way in cleaning our environment in the last 40 years. This needs to factored into the conversation IMO.

 

[Pierre I am]

I think you are ignoring the obvious advances in technology in the fossil fuel arena. Stack technologies along with emission controls and engine technology are removing more pollutants and producing more clean energy per gallon of fuel than ever.

I grew up in Southern California. The native Indians of the area called Los Angeles "The Valley of Smoke," even before it was urbanized, due to the geographical makeup of the area. As a kid, LA looked like modern day Beijing China. Today the air is mostly clear and blue.

We as "humans" have come a LONG way in cleaning our environment in the last 40 years. This needs to factored into the conversation IMO.

In terms of Air Quality that is true but in terms of CO2 emission it's the inverse.

 

[kevin 714]

And of course just outsourcing our environmental disasters elsewhere so we don't see it HERE.

The entire western capitalist way of life is built on, and requires, significant enviro destruction. Have a check at Mongolias lakes, Nigerians deltas, palm plantations in Indonesian rain forests, etc


It's just nice not to see it, but it's going on in exponentially bigger ways all over the planet. It's not better overall, it's much much worse

 

[Pierre I am]

And of course just outsourcing our environmental disasters elsewhere so we don't see it HERE.

The entire western capitalist way of life is built on, and requires, significant enviro destruction. Have a check at Mongolias lakes, Nigerians deltas, palm plantations in Indonesian rain forests, etc


It's just nice not to see it, but it's going on in exponentially bigger ways all over the planet. It's not better overall, it's much much worse

Oh you mean like promising not to use coal and then selling it to China?

 

[Pierre I am]

You can also use google earth engine to see the deforestation done.

 

[Nahullo]

No, the assumption is that the industrial revolution and emergence of the fossil fuel economy has increased the temperature of the planet.

I stand corrected, the spontaneous combustion of fossil fuel is clearly the reason for an increase in the temperature of the planet. I dont know why I ever considered that human action might have had something to do with the issue...

 

[MikeL]

What concerns me more is that as adult humans, people claim they know better than experts when they have not done more than a couple minutes on the web of research.

Don't claim to be an expert or be smarter than the experts when you haven't even touched the subject.

I'm not saying that you should believe one group or another without doubt, but when the majority of a scientific field says "Global climate change is happening and is man made" I'm inclined to believe them and think they are on the right track.

The majority is often wrong, but as this cartoon depicts, I'll take my chances on this majority.

 

[corndog67]

What concerns me more is that as adult humans, people claim they know better than experts when they have not done more than a couple minutes on the web of research.

Don't claim to be an expert or be smarter than the experts when you haven't even touched the subject.

I'm not saying that you should believe one group or another without doubt, but when the majority of a scientific field says "Global climate change is happening and is man made" I'm inclined to believe them and think they are on the right track.

The majority is often wrong, but as this cartoon depicts, I'll take my chances on this majority.

When they connect it to either religion or Al Gore making money off it, it's funny as fuck. Same with the political party thing. People don't believe in it because they're Republicans. Talk about burying your head in the sand.

 

[mrmarklin]

The problem with the topics on the chart in the cartoon is that the topics are mostly nonsensical myths.

Green jobs? See Solyndra.

Energy independence? Already here, luckily.

Better environment? Maybe. But there's not enough room in the world for the solar panels and wind machines necessary.

I could go on, but a lot of this is feel good pie in the sky. It does make certain people feel real righteous.

 

[MikeL]

The problem with the topics on the chart in the cartoon is that the topics are mostly nonsensical myths.

Green jobs? See Solyndra.

One company goes under and that's your "fact for why it's all bs!" That's fairly shitty reasoning. Actually incredibly shitty reasoning. Thousands of other companies have survived and come online since Solyndra in many different fields related to green jobs.

Energy independence? Already here, luckily.

This is a misunderstanding of energy independence. Energy independence would be removing the need for fossil fuels all together because they are still a risk. When your fuel source is finite - you never truly have independence unless you find an alternative fuel source before it runs out.

It's why Saudi Arabia has major concerns for when the oil runs out. They have no real power source currently available except solar. They will not be energy independent without a MAJOR solar build out.

It's also why the DoD is heavily investing in alternative fuel options as we are not as energy independent as we like to believe, especially in an economic sense. The previous oil prices are one example. Our allies are also not energy independent so the faster we can get our military to that point the better we can transition allies for the same reasoning.

Energy independence also has to factor in our subsidy system through military work in foreign lands. We can't be considered energy independent when we spend trillions defending assets for ourselves and allies overseas.

Better environment? Maybe. But there's not enough room in the world for the solar panels and wind machines necessary.

This is completely untrue. Several studies have shown that to power the whole world we would need about a solar panel patch the size of Spain. Transmission is your bigger enemy.

Let's factor in that we would never need to do that because we could use wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro, and solar to complement each other.

 

[nakedape]

"One company goes under and that's your "fact for why it's all bs!" That's fairly shitty reasoning. Actually incredibly shitty reasoning. Thousands of other companies have survived and come online since Solyndra in many different fields related to green jobs."

Nobody said "all bs" those are your words. Even those enjoying electric motos have to acknowledge fossil fuel drives the grid and therefore their bikes. What the skeptics rightly point out, is that BIG MONEY has seized the messaging and future regulation (read profits) related to AGW. Period. And they are positioning to burden the Average Joe with those "buildout" costs though taxation. It's not an anti-environmental stance, it's objecting to taxation without representation.

 

[corndog67]

Cause God said so. I heard Glenn Beck say that. "God created climate change."

 

[MikeL]

Nobody said "all bs" those are your words. Even those enjoying electric motos have to acknowledge fossil fuel drives the grid and therefore their bikes. What the skeptics rightly point out, is that BIG MONEY has seized the messaging and future regulation (read profits) related to AGW. Period. And they are positioning to burden the Average Joe with those "buildout" costs though taxation. It's not an anti-environmental stance, it's objecting to taxation without representation.

Except that is what he is saying. He is saying that because Solyndra failed, green jobs don't or can't exist.

The Solyndra issue is bigger than one company, it's about several countries all using subsidization to win the green energy technology build out race. Solyndra had warning signs of failure before their big subsidization. China, the US, Germany, and several others are pumping billions into solar, wind, geothermal (sometimes) to win the race.

I'm not sure on your taxation without representation point?

 

[kevin 714]

Never mind that the real reason solar has a hard time being competitive is because we have free trade with a country (China) who massively subsidizes the industry and then exports them here. Made with materials sourced from central Africa which is (the extraction process) 100% subsidized by them too


One company failed while we figure out how to address that and that's it? Lol people are so short sighted

 

[mean dad]

Nobody said "all bs" those are your words.

The problem with the topics on the chart in the cartoon is that the topics are mostly nonsensical myths.

BS / nonsensical myths

Poe tay to / puh tah toe

 

[nakedape]

Except that is what he is saying. He is saying that because Solyndra failed, green jobs don't or can't exist.

I'm not sure on your taxation without representation point?

You're spinning. If anyone said that, quote it. I'll explain taxation. If we, the voters of California for example, vote to throw 10 billion (the annual budget of LA Unified Schools for comparison) at water infrastructure improvements, that is representative taxation. "Only an idiot", to borrow the language of climate change proponents, would deny this is needed in our state. Same with roads and bridges nationwide.

If an "international" panel of climate change scientists recommend spending many more billions via various regulatory means, worked out behind closed doors, conveniently connected to industrial schemes they overtly profit from, that NOT representative taxation.

This issue has less than zero to do with religion, party affiliation or denial of environmental problems. At least for me.

 

[CoorsLight]

The climate denying propaganda hinges on this false conflation: The scientists are in cahoots with the profiteers like Al Gore. That's the best way to dismiss this huge body of research out of hand.

Sorry, it's just not true. Show me a scientific paper that advocates cap and trade. Show me just one.

Scientists are stuck in the middle, with their research being distorted and cynically used by both sides. This thread is a great example of the harsh reality: most people, even the activists, are not exposed to the raw science. All anyone gets is provocative propaganda, moving them to fight proxy battles for the profiteers on both sides.

When I got started in atmospheric research, I did not believe in global warming. I bought into the natural cycles bullshit 100%. But I was just a chemist, and my expertise at the time had nothing to do with the atmosphere. But eventually I had to read the literature, and I had to face the real science. The question of global warming isn't "if" it's "how much." It's really quite clear if you dissect the science, but it takes time to drag yourself through all the research, and people don't have time for that. But that doesn't seem to prevent them from forming opinions and getting all hot under the collar over it. This is true for people on both sides.