"Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"

[Lynn McGuire]

"Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/

"With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday,
it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations."

"The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate
issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science."

"U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on
the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N.
transforming their lives?"

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
news:nfdov0$3s4$1...@dont-email.me:

> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-pa
> ris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/8334984
> 8/
>
> "With the Obama administration set to

ask the Senate, which will laugh in his face, to ratify

" the
> Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document
> Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the
> United Nations."

FTFY. HAND.

Politics have overwhelmed science on all sides of that issue. And the
stupid has overwhelmed the politics on all sides, as well.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Robert Carnegie]

Well, I'm impressed. That man is really, really old.

[Lynn McGuire]

81? 81 is not that old anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_%28news_weathercaster%29

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 4/22/2016 1:13 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
> news:nfdov0$3s4$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-pa
>> ris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/8334984
>> 8/
>>
>> "With the Obama administration set to
>
> ask the Senate, which will laugh in his face, to ratify
>
> " the
>> Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document
>> Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the
>> United Nations."
>
> FTFY. HAND.
>
> Politics have overwhelmed science on all sides of that issue. And the
> stupid has overwhelmed the politics on all sides, as well.

FTFY = Fixed That For You.

HAND = Hand to the face ???

Lynn

[Kevrob]

Sometimes, you'd think so.

I think it is Have A Nice Day, though.

The younguns use this for HTTF:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facepalm

Kevin R

[Alan Baker]

And his age is important in what way other than as an ad hominem?

[Alan Baker]

Have A Nice Day.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:nfe7cv$tdu$2...@dont-email.me:

Have A Nice Day. This is internet-speak for EABOD, more or less.

[Robert Bannister]

The "Nobel prize winner" is Professor Ivar Giaver.
"Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of
Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics
Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling."

-- In other words, he knows no more about climate than any layman.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Alan Baker]

No. You cannot say that.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:58:24 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
in<news:dnvvlj...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 23/04/2016 2:05 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"

>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/

[...]

> The "Nobel prize winner" is Professor Ivar Giaver.
> "Giaever, a former professor at the School of
> Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic
> Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work
> on quantum tunneling."

> -- In other words, he knows no more about climate than
> any layman.

Oh, he probably knows more than *some* laymen; he also
undoubtedly knows *less* than some laymen. It would be
better to say that there is no reason to suppose that he
has the kind of knowledge that would justify paying him
serious attention when the people with genuine expertise
almost unanimously disagree with him.

The author of that piece is a liar, presenting a misleading
2010 document as if it were current and honest, and a
hypocrite: science *has* decided, and it’s jerks like him
who are making it a political issue. (Mind you, the
question of how to deal with it is legitimately a political
issue, but that’s not what he’s on about: he’s pretending
that the existence of the problem is a political issue.)

He’s contemptible.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, Brian, but "science" is nowhere near as decided as the proponents
of AGW are claiming.

[Lynn McGuire]

The science is not decided yet. Yes, Global Warming has been going for the last 10,000+ years. However, Anthropogenic Global
Warming is a hypothesis at best. AGW is not a theory. AGW is not a law. AGW is a hypothesis.

The proposed CO2 limits are going to kill at least 50% of the population of the planet. First, the proposed CO2 limits will move the
middle class in the USA into the bottom class due to the massive job losses. Then the food rationing will come as the farmers can no
longer afford the fossil fuels needed for agriculture. BTW, 25% of the fossil fuels used in the USA are for agriculture.

I wonder how Galileo felt when all of the scientists around him bowed to the church and joined in the consensus that the Sun revolved
around the Earth. It must have been horrible knowing he was right and the others were just following policy in the ten+ years of his
house arrest after his conviction for heresy.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <nfeo3j$88s$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

>
> On 4/22/2016 9:34 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:58:24 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
> > in<news:dnvvlj...@mid.individual.net> in
> > rec.arts.sf.written:
> >
> >> On 23/04/2016 2:05 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >>> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
> >
> >>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> The "Nobel prize winner" is Professor Ivar Giaver.
> >> "Giaever, a former professor at the School of
> >> Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic
> >> Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work
> >> on quantum tunneling."
> >
> >> -- In other words, he knows no more about climate than
> >> any layman.
> >
> > Oh, he probably knows more than *some* laymen; he also
> > undoubtedly knows *less* than some laymen. It would be
> > better to say that there is no reason to suppose that he
> > has the kind of knowledge that would justify paying him
> > serious attention when the people with genuine expertise
> > almost unanimously disagree with him.
> >
> > The author of that piece is a liar, presenting a misleading
> > 2010 document as if it were current and honest, and a

> > hypocrite: science *has* decided, and it?s jerks like him

> > who are making it a political issue. (Mind you, the
> > question of how to deal with it is legitimately a political

> > issue, but that?s not what he?s on about: he?s pretending

> > that the existence of the problem is a political issue.)
> >

> > He?s contemptible.

> >
> > Brian
>
> The science is not decided yet. Yes, Global Warming has been going for the last 10,000+ years. However, Anthropogenic Global
> Warming is a hypothesis at best. AGW is not a theory. AGW is not a law. AGW is a hypothesis.
>
> The proposed CO2 limits are going to kill at least 50% of the population of the planet. First, the proposed CO2 limits will move the
> middle class in the USA into the bottom class due to the massive job losses. Then the food rationing will come as the farmers can no
> longer afford the fossil fuels needed for agriculture. BTW, 25% of the fossil fuels used in the USA are for agriculture.
>
> I wonder how Galileo felt when all of the scientists around him bowed to the church and joined in the consensus that the Sun revolved
> around the Earth. It must have been horrible knowing he was right and the others were just following policy in the ten+ years of his
> house arrest after his conviction for heresy.

Galileo knew the Pope personally and went out of his way to piss him
off. He wasn't punished for being right, he was punished for being an
asshole.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Well, we can't say for certain he hasn't read up on climate and thus
knows more than the average layman, but we CAN say that his being a
Nobel Prize Winner in Physics is irrelevant to his views on climate; he
has no actual QUALIFICATIONS to make any statements about climate,
unless he went out and in addition to his (now forty year old) work in
physics got himself an advanced degree in climatology.

Scientists and engineers are NOTORIOUS for thinking their expertise in
their particular field translates to high expertise in ALL fields of
engineering or science -- and being very wrong. In the category of Nobel
Prize Winners, for instance, Paul Ehrlich is a classic example of
"Really knows his own field,but...".

In other words, Bigname Scientist in Field X should be usually treated
as no more significant a voice than any layman in Field Y, unless Field
Y is **VERY** close to Field X. Climatology is a long, long way from
quantum physics.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Alan Baker]

No. We can't say that either.

You don't get a Ph.D. in physics (let alone a Nobel Prize) without
knowing a lot about how to evaluate scientific research.

>
> Scientists and engineers are NOTORIOUS for thinking their expertise
> in their particular field translates to high expertise in ALL fields of
> engineering or science -- and being very wrong. In the category of Nobel
> Prize Winners, for instance, Paul Ehrlich is a classic example of
> "Really knows his own field,but...".
>
> In other words, Bigname Scientist in Field X should be usually
> treated as no more significant a voice than any layman in Field Y,
> unless Field Y is **VERY** close to Field X. Climatology is a long, long
> way from quantum physics.

And the way it is practiced, it seems it is sometimes a long, long way
from science.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-04-22 8:29 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

'Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society:

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the
Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and
human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases beginning now.”

I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is
incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in
100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim
it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the
maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.
When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?'

<http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever>

[Lynn McGuire]

Got reference?

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <nff07c$qga$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/horizon/sept98/galileo.htm>

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

How to evaluate it IN YOUR FIELD. A physicist can, at best, evaluate
the experimental method of SOME chemistry experiments, but only to a
limited degree, because they may not even know some of the experimental
requirements and limitations of the field, and in the deeper levels of
the science the physicist may find he doesn't even know the TERMS involved.

I'm a technical writer whose job it is to be able to talk with, and
interpret between, scientists and engineers and laymen, and make things
make at least some surface sense to all of them. And not only am I aware
of my own VAST limitations in being able to understand the nuances of
the technical and scientific fields that I have at best an undergrad or
low graduate level grasp of, I am also PAINFULLY aware of how even the
brightest and most accomplished people I meet harbor completely
wrongheaded notions about other fields of endeavor, and how very little
of their expertise is transferring to fields any distance outside their own.

>
>>
>> Scientists and engineers are NOTORIOUS for thinking their expertise
>> in their particular field translates to high expertise in ALL fields of
>> engineering or science -- and being very wrong. In the category of Nobel
>> Prize Winners, for instance, Paul Ehrlich is a classic example of
>> "Really knows his own field,but...".
>>
>> In other words, Bigname Scientist in Field X should be usually
>> treated as no more significant a voice than any layman in Field Y,
>> unless Field Y is **VERY** close to Field X. Climatology is a long, long
>> way from quantum physics.
>
> And the way it is practiced, it seems it is sometimes a long, long way
> from science.
>

This is true of all sciences. Climatology seems no different in that
regard.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I await with bated breath your demonstration that inertia never existed.

> Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in
> 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim
> it has become warmer, why is everything better than before?

"Everything better than before"? Have you looked at the world at all?
There's plenty of places already suffering the consequences of climate
change. No, the icecaps haven't yet all melted and inundated us in a
wall of water two hundred feet high, but that was never actually the
prediction.

Forth: the
> maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.

Um... no. Not true. Not even vaguely close to true.

> When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?'

Er what? Even if you DON'T believe in anthropogenic climate change,
what in the world is wrong with figuring out new and less-polluting ways
to make energy for our use?

>
> <http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever>

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 12:40:12 PM UTC+10, Alan Baker wrote:

>
> Sorry, Brian, but "science" is nowhere near as decided as the proponents
> of AGW are claiming.

Perhaps you could find us the peer reviewed scientific papers that disagree with it and the alternative plausible alternative explanations for observations on the climate?

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 12:57:08 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>
> The science is not decided yet.

and you know that because Rush Limbaugh disagrees with it?
Or is it the republican politicians who argue that God won't let it happen as they're the chosen people?

> Yes, Global Warming has been going for the last 10,000+ years. However, Anthropogenic Global
> Warming is a hypothesis at best. AGW is not a theory. AGW is not a law. AGW is a hypothesis.

Again, what's your actual basis for making this claim which is in opposition to basically all of the scientific experts and peer reviewed papers?
Try and avoid the paranoid right wing sits claiming a conspiracy and actually give us scientific observations and facts.

>
> The proposed CO2 limits are going to kill at least 50% of the population of the planet.

Sources, again ignoring right wing conspiracy sites.

> First, the proposed CO2 limits will move the
> middle class in the USA into the bottom class due to the massive job losses.

You don't think that building renewable resource power plants, improving housing insulation for efficiency etc will create jobs?

There's been modelling conducted in Australia which shows that South Australia can have it's energy usage 100% renewable driven (a combination of wind power, solar, solar thermal and biofuel. There's also the option of pumped hydro, wave power etc...

Now other places may need different balances, however Tasmania has been almost entirely Hydro powered for a long time (we've occasionally used backup diesel generators and in the last 10 years there's been a connection to the mainland which allows transfer of power both ways, I'm unsure of whether we've exported or imported more power)

> Then the food rationing will come as the farmers can no
> longer afford the fossil fuels needed for agriculture. BTW, 25% of the fossil fuels used in the USA are for agriculture.

according to
http://www.sustainabletable.org/982/agriculture-energy-climate-change
fertilizer production is about 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

A large impact is apparently the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers which produce nitrous oxide and also produce runoff causing large problems for water quality, including algae blooms iirc

Seeing as in the US and Canada 50% of fertilizer is used for feed crops for animals there are changes which can be made there.
Reducing the consumption of meat would be a major factor in reducing emissions

Maybe we need to do something about replacing the fertilizer we make from fossil fuels with something made from the manure that we now put into manure lagoons and leave to break down to methane.

Maybe rather than catching fish off of maine, sending it to china to be fileted and shipping it back to the USA it'd make more sense to process it in the USA...

Maybe rather than exporting 1.4 billion tons of beef and importing 3 billion tons of beef the USA could import 1.6 billion tons of beef (or reduce beef consumption by about 5% so they don't need to import any)

>
> I wonder how Galileo felt when all of the scientists around him bowed to the church and joined in the consensus that the Sun revolved
> around the Earth. It must have been horrible knowing he was right and the others were just following policy in the ten+ years of his
> house arrest after his conviction for heresy.
>

Wow, I haven't seen the "they all laughed at Galileo" argument in ages, it's not a particularly good attempt at it but I'll give you points for bringing back a classic.
Note that while people may have laughed at Galileo they definitely laughed at Bozo the clown.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

How much time does he spend each day checking if gravity has been repealed?
If cyanide is now safe and tasty?
If he would survive the extraction of his brain through his nose?

Is it wrong that they stopped people using lead based paint domestically because it's not incontrovertible that it has a health impact?
Will he return his noble prize because it's possible that the mechanism could be found to be wrong?

>Second: the "measured" average temperature increase in
> 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim
> it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the
> maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.
> When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?'
>
> <http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever>

Yes, quoting a member of the Heartland Institute gives you great credibility. That'd be the think tank which worked with a cigarette company to cast doubt on the health impact of cigarette smoke in the 1990s

It was started by somebody who'd worked for the Kochs...

Also the argument that "the hottest ever year was in 1998 so we can't be having a warming" climate is primary school level.

Robert Wadlow was born in 1918 and is still the tallest man ever known at 8'11". Does that mean that heights haven't generally increased over the last 100 years?
The 1998 peak was massively above trend because there are cycles in climate and several of them hit at the same time to cause an extremely hot year.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
shows how big a jump up 1998 was above previous years but also shows that the trend is still up.

[Dimensional Traveler]

But is a useful statement for helping determine who is paying the
doctor's travel expenses and speaking fees.

--
Privacy IS Security

[lal_truckee]

On 4/22/16 11:05 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone
> on the planet very different”

Someone says that the future is going to be different (here, on a
science fiction forum!) and the rabble rise up in opposition. Astounding.

Come on - the future IS going to be different. These quotes aren't
saying anything new.

The only issues are whether building that future will be an
environmental free-for-all such as we endured during the immensely
damaging first industrial revolution from which we are only now dragging
ourselves, or will have moderate protections against excesses.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nfg4f1$dhm$1...@dont-email.me>, dtr...@sonic.net says...

In any case there has never been any objection to "figuring out new and
less polluting way to make energy for our use" and in fact we have a
great many of them.

The objection comes when someone starts demanding that the government
force us against our will to abandon our exising means of making energy
in favor of the "new and less polluting" means even though that will
mean that energy costs increase.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but that's a false dichotomy.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 7:34:11 PM UTC-7, Brian M. Scott wrote:


> > The "Nobel prize winner" is Professor Ivar Giaver.
> > "Giaever, a former professor at the School of
> > Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic
> > Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work
> > on quantum tunneling."
>
> > -- In other words, he knows no more about climate than
> > any layman.
>
> Oh, he probably knows more than *some* laymen; he also
> undoubtedly knows *less* than some laymen. It would be
> better to say that there is no reason to suppose that he
> has the kind of knowledge that would justify paying him
> serious attention when the people with genuine expertise
> almost unanimously disagree with him.

On the other hand, he IS an expert in the scientific method, and thus can recognize when bullshit (ahem AGW...) is merely posing as science. Here's a hint, science is not an exercise in popularity. Opinion polls are meaningless.

And if we are getting into *expertise*, climatologists are no more experts in whether warming is good or bad than any random cab driver. For that you need... an economist.

Hi there.

[Alan Baker]

1. Being granted audiences with the Pope is not the same thing as
knowing him personally.

2. Where did he "go out of his way to piss him off"?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 7:40:12 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:


> Sorry, Brian, but "science" is nowhere near as decided as the proponents
> of AGW are claiming.

I think you misspelled 'never' there...

After 200+ years NEWTON was proven wrong by a nobody (at the time...). If 100% support among physicists over a simple straightforward model for literally centuries wasn't enough for a scientific discussion to be 'closed' where does that leave AGW theory?

[Alan Baker]

But he can find them out just like any of us can.

I'm sorry, but your thesis is that his background in science leaves him
no better off to evaluate climate science than a layman, and that's
obviously nonsense.

>
> I'm a technical writer whose job it is to be able to talk with, and
> interpret between, scientists and engineers and laymen, and make things
> make at least some surface sense to all of them. And not only am I aware
> of my own VAST limitations in being able to understand the nuances of
> the technical and scientific fields that I have at best an undergrad or
> low graduate level grasp of, I am also PAINFULLY aware of how even the
> brightest and most accomplished people I meet harbor completely
> wrongheaded notions about other fields of endeavor, and how very little
> of their expertise is transferring to fields any distance outside their
> own.

That can certainly happen.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Scientists and engineers are NOTORIOUS for thinking their expertise
>>> in their particular field translates to high expertise in ALL fields of
>>> engineering or science -- and being very wrong. In the category of Nobel
>>> Prize Winners, for instance, Paul Ehrlich is a classic example of
>>> "Really knows his own field,but...".
>>>
>>> In other words, Bigname Scientist in Field X should be usually
>>> treated as no more significant a voice than any layman in Field Y,
>>> unless Field Y is **VERY** close to Field X. Climatology is a long, long
>>> way from quantum physics.
>>
>> And the way it is practiced, it seems it is sometimes a long, long way
>> from science.
>>
>
> This is true of all sciences. Climatology seems no different in
> that regard.

Except that climatology isn't being TREATED like this is true.

[Alan Baker]

That I cannot demonstrate it, doesn't mean it doesn't await someone to
do it.

Remember the "incontrovertible" laws of motion from Newton...

...until Einstein came along?

>
>
>> Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in
>> 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim
>> it has become warmer, why is everything better than before?
>
> "Everything better than before"? Have you looked at the world at
> all? There's plenty of places already suffering the consequences of
> climate change. No, the icecaps haven't yet all melted and inundated us
> in a wall of water two hundred feet high, but that was never actually
> the prediction.
>
>
> Forth: the
>> maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.
>
> Um... no. Not true. Not even vaguely close to true.

So show it?

>
>> When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?'
>
>
> Er what? Even if you DON'T believe in anthropogenic climate change,
> what in the world is wrong with figuring out new and less-polluting ways
> to make energy for our use?
>
>>
>> <http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever>

Why are you arguing with me when I provided a quote?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:02:22 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> How to evaluate it IN YOUR FIELD.

Which you will defend to the death, until someone points out that climatology is not economics, at which point climatologists become the only people 'qualified' to determine if something is good or bad on net...

Economics is not their field...

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:07:16 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> > Second: the "measured" average temperature increase in
> > 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim
> > it has become warmer, why is everything better than before?
>
> "Everything better than before"? Have you looked at the world at all?
> There's plenty of places already suffering the consequences of climate
> change.

Are they? OK. How do you measure that, and how do you prove that AGW is the cause? Just because two things happen together doesn't mean one causes the other. Specifically if more CO2 simply leads to higher temperatures, why were temps DECLINING from 1940-1970?

> Forth: the
> > maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.
>
> Um... no. Not true. Not even vaguely close to true.

And yet you cite no evidence...

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:06:44 AM UTC-7, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:


> > The science is not decided yet.
>
> and you know that because Rush Limbaugh disagrees with it?
> Or is it the republican politicians who argue that God won't let it happen as they're the chosen people?

It's because the models they worship don't actually make accurate predictions.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:34:09 AM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:


> >> When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?'
> >
> > Er what? Even if you DON'T believe in anthropogenic climate change,
> > what in the world is wrong with figuring out new and less-polluting ways
> > to make energy for our use?
> >
> But is a useful statement for helping determine who is paying the
> doctor's travel expenses and speaking fees.

Begging the question of whether CO2 is a 'pollutant'. From the evidence its effects are BENEFICIAL, and thus having less makes us worse off, in addition to the higher costs of alternatives.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-23, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> On 2016-04-23 7:07 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> I await with bated breath your demonstration that inertia never
>> existed.
>
> That I cannot demonstrate it, doesn't mean it doesn't await someone to
> do it.
>
> Remember the "incontrovertible" laws of motion from Newton...
>
> ...until Einstein came along?

... and remember that in most cases Einstein's laws _reduce to_ Newton's for
all practical purposes, having differences only in regimes closer to the speed
of light than any of us here on Earth are ever gonna get and/or containing much
more mass or concentration of mass than we could possibly pull together?

Srsly, dude: the data doesn't change. Einstein HAD TO recreate the predictions
of Newton over not-utterly-fast speeds and not-really-ginormous masses.

Einstein didn't do a thing towards how nicely Newton's laws modelled just about
any Earthly situation you, your automobile or jet plane, and your set of
barbells and your clock pendulum are gonna find themselves in. He just got
BETTER predictions when tiny effects get taken into account.

Dave, it's not like scientific paradigm changes suddenly introduce magic into
the world

PS:

>>> Forth: the
>>> maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.
>>
>> Um... no. Not true. Not even vaguely close to true.
>
> So show it?

It's your claim, misspelled non-ironically; tell us which orifice you pulled it
out of, first, thanks. Anyone can CLAIM anything at all, and on the Internet
lots of them do.

Also, you failed to note m.a.t. WHERE, over what period, and other important
details; the m.a.t. in the Solar System, for example, is 8 light-minutes away
from Earth at all times. Vague claims are even easier to blather forth than
specific ones.
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Dimensional Traveler]

So you take it as an absolute given that other energy sources can NEVER
be improved to the point of being competitive with existing sources for
at least some applications? I think there are a number of people and
groups jumping to the assumption that there is some general demand that
we must switch to new energy sources right this second. Yet all the
treaties and discussions are about research to find new sources and
improve others so that we can make changes over time. Yes, the sooner
we can do so probably the better but I don't see anyone seriously
proposing a "right this second" PLAN. I don't mean this as an
accusation but what you posted sounds very much like what very large
current energy source companies are saying in an effort to prevent
competition.

--
Privacy IS Security

[Lynn McGuire]

Working in the oil and natural industry for most of my life, I have been
to several meetings in the last couple of years where the design
engineering firms are throwing around a plan for the USA. The plan's
authors are not named but it is little doubt that these are exploratory
positions from the USA EPA.

Anyway, the plan is to start charging industries in the USA $15/ton of
CO2 produced. The second year, $30/ton of CO2 produced. The third
year, $45/ton of CO2 produced. I have not done the math myself but
$15/ton of CO2 produced is supposedly equivalent to 50 cents/gallon of
gasoline. The EPA also has a plan of rebating 50% of the collected CO2
back to each individual household in the USA.

The hangup on this plan is who is going to collect the CO2 tax on fuel
sales. Right now, the EPA position is that the seller (refineries,
natural gas pipelines) should collect the CO2 tax. These entities are
pushing back very hard through their congress people. They do not want
to be blamed by the public for these high taxes. Nor do they want to
collect this amount of taxes for the government.

There is also a cap and trade plan quite similar to the very successful
SO2 cap and trade plan. But the EPA realizes that the CO2 trade market
will be 100X the size of the SO2 market and is not leaning in that
direction.

The hangup? No federal agency has ever proposed, assigned, and
collected a tax. The Clean Air Act provides for fines that might be
construed as a tax (see Obamacare) so they are working in that
direction. However, Congress is very jealous about who assigns taxes
and spends the money involved. BTW, the CO2 will generate a half
trillion dollars in its first year, a trillion dollars in its second
year, etc. The EPA has plans for this money without involving Congress.
Congress as it sits today will not allow this to happen to the USA.

There has never been a country that taxed itself into prosperity. Quite
the opposite, the economy of the USA will spiral into sometime way
smaller than it is now and there will be extensive job loss as
industries cut back, shut down and in some cases move elsewhere.

Lynn

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 19:40:10 -0700, Alan Baker
<alang...@telus.net> wrote
in<news:nfenaa$l6s$2...@news.datemas.de> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> Sorry, Brian, but "science" is nowhere near as decided as
> the proponents of AGW are claiming.

“Science” is what you deniers are appealing to, when you
bother to appeal to anything at all. Science is another
matter altogether. The actual scientific consensus at this
point is about as strong as it ever gets in any field.

You, Lynn, and Shawn might as well be flat-earthers, or
believe that we never landed on the moon. I may
occasionally point out that you’re wrong, but I’m not about
to waste my time arguing with wilful ignorance.

[Kevrob]

Whatever the incidence of such taxation, and the methods of its
collection, reducing taxes on personal and business income by
a comparable amount (tax neutrality) is something I'd call for.
Carbon taxes shouldn't be a back door tax increase.

I'm very suspicious that some wouldn't want perfect neutrality,
hoping to increase government's slice of the GDP, yet again.

YMMV.

Kevin R

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 1:43:01 PM UTC-7, Brian M. Scott wrote:


> You, Lynn, and Shawn might as well be flat-earthers, or
> believe that we never landed on the moon. I may
> occasionally point out that you're wrong, but I'm not about
> to waste my time arguing with wilful ignorance.

You can call names all you want, that won't magically make AGW models retroactively correct nor make true the notion that ANYTHING in science ever is or ever can be 'settled'. It also won't make their economic claims correct.

ANYONE claiming that 'the science'is settled' is a priori not a scientist. That is a hucksters attempt to kill a discussion that cannot win.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nfghat$sk7$1...@dont-email.me>, dtr...@sonic.net says...

>
> On 4/23/2016 9:16 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <nfg4f1$dhm$1...@dont-email.me>, dtr...@sonic.net says...
> >>
> >> On 4/23/2016 7:07 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >>> On 4/22/16 11:48 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?'
> >>>
> >>> Er what? Even if you DON'T believe in anthropogenic climate change,
> >>> what in the world is wrong with figuring out new and less-polluting ways
> >>> to make energy for our use?
> >>>
> >> But is a useful statement for helping determine who is paying the
> >> doctor's travel expenses and speaking fees.
> >
> > In any case there has never been any objection to "figuring out new and
> > less polluting way to make energy for our use" and in fact we have a
> > great many of them.
> >
> > The objection comes when someone starts demanding that the government
> > force us against our will to abandon our exising means of making energy
> > in favor of the "new and less polluting" means even though that will
> > mean that energy costs increase.
> >
> So you take it as an absolute given that other energy sources can NEVER
> be improved to the point of being competitive with existing sources for
> at least some applications?

Where did I say that? When the alternative is cheaper the market will
make the decision. My objection is to demands that the government pass
laws that force people to adopt the alternatives before that time.

> I think there are a number of people and
> groups jumping to the assumption that there is some general demand that
> we must switch to new energy sources right this second.

If there was a "general demand" then there wouldn't be any issue at all,
consumers would just do it.

> Yet all the
> treaties and discussions are about research to find new sources and
> improve others so that we can make changes over time.

Why do we need treaties and discussions about research that is already
ongoing?

> Yes, the sooner
> we can do so probably the better but I don't see anyone seriously
> proposing a "right this second" PLAN.

Besided IPCC and Al Gore?

> I don't mean this as an
> accusation but what you posted sounds very much like what very large
> current energy source companies are saying in an effort to prevent
> competition.

And now you're back to propagandizing. Very large current energy source
companies are spending quite a lot investigating alternatives. They know
the oil is going to run out and want to be ready when it does.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Than an EDUCATED layman ? Yes. Dunning-Kreuger takes over with people
like that just as it does for everyone else, except that often when you
have "Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist" in front of your name a lot fewer
people are willing to tell you that you're the buck-naked emperor.

>
>>
>> I'm a technical writer whose job it is to be able to talk with, and
>> interpret between, scientists and engineers and laymen, and make things
>> make at least some surface sense to all of them. And not only am I aware
>> of my own VAST limitations in being able to understand the nuances of
>> the technical and scientific fields that I have at best an undergrad or
>> low graduate level grasp of, I am also PAINFULLY aware of how even the
>> brightest and most accomplished people I meet harbor completely
>> wrongheaded notions about other fields of endeavor, and how very little
>> of their expertise is transferring to fields any distance outside their
>> own.
>
> That can certainly happen.

Not just can, but does. Very frequently.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scientists and engineers are NOTORIOUS for thinking their
>>>> expertise
>>>> in their particular field translates to high expertise in ALL fields of
>>>> engineering or science -- and being very wrong. In the category of
>>>> Nobel
>>>> Prize Winners, for instance, Paul Ehrlich is a classic example of
>>>> "Really knows his own field,but...".
>>>>
>>>> In other words, Bigname Scientist in Field X should be usually
>>>> treated as no more significant a voice than any layman in Field Y,
>>>> unless Field Y is **VERY** close to Field X. Climatology is a long,
>>>> long
>>>> way from quantum physics.
>>>
>>> And the way it is practiced, it seems it is sometimes a long, long way
>>> from science.
>>>
>>
>> This is true of all sciences. Climatology seems no different in
>> that regard.
>
> Except that climatology isn't being TREATED like this is true.
>

It's being treated JUST LIKE other sciences. I.e., if the vast majority
of the people *in that field* (not "other scientists") say X is true,
it's probably true. Which is the way it, and the other fields of
science, are treated: 95%+ of physicists agree on virtually all aspects
of the field, 95%+ of chemists agree on their field, and so on.

There's just an awful lot of people who REALLYREALLYREALLY don't want
to believe what their results are, and a lot of them are connected to
people that have vested interests in those results not being true.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Have you even tried looking it up? The hottest year on record currently
is 2015, and right now it looks like 2016 is on the way to break that
record. 15 of the 16 hottest years on record occurred after 2001.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

>
>>
>>> When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?'
>>
>>
>> Er what? Even if you DON'T believe in anthropogenic climate change,
>> what in the world is wrong with figuring out new and less-polluting ways
>> to make energy for our use?
>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever>
>>>
>
> Why are you arguing with me when I provided a quote?
>

You provided a quote from a non-climatologist on the subject that he is
not qualified to make any major pronouncements on.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 4/22/2016 9:40 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2016-04-22 7:34 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:58:24 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
>> in<news:dnvvlj...@mid.individual.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>

>>> On 23/04/2016 2:05 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>>> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/
>>>>
>>

>> [...]

>>
>>> The "Nobel prize winner" is Professor Ivar Giaver.
>>> "Giaever, a former professor at the School of
>>> Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic
>>> Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work
>>> on quantum tunneling."
>>
>>> -- In other words, he knows no more about climate than
>>> any layman.
>>

>> Oh, he probably knows more than *some* laymen; he also
>> undoubtedly knows *less* than some laymen. It would be
>> better to say that there is no reason to suppose that he
>> has the kind of knowledge that would justify paying him
>> serious attention when the people with genuine expertise
>> almost unanimously disagree with him.
>>
>> The author of that piece is a liar, presenting a misleading
>> 2010 document as if it were current and honest, and a

>> hypocrite: science *has* decided, and it’s jerks like him

>> who are making it a political issue. (Mind you, the
>> question of how to deal with it is legitimately a political

>> issue, but that’s not what he’s on about: he’s pretending

>> that the existence of the problem is a political issue.)
>>

>> He’s contemptible.
>>
>> Brian

>>
>
> Sorry, Brian, but "science" is nowhere near as decided as the proponents
> of AGW are claiming.

+1

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

It the sign of an uneducated mind that resorts to calling names in the
face of truth.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <nfgt7c$7t5$2...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

>
> On 4/23/2016 3:43 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 19:40:10 -0700, Alan Baker
> > <alang...@telus.net> wrote
> > in<news:nfenaa$l6s$2...@news.datemas.de> in
> > rec.arts.sf.written:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Sorry, Brian, but "science" is nowhere near as decided as
> >> the proponents of AGW are claiming.
> >

> > ?Science? is what you deniers are appealing to, when you

> > bother to appeal to anything at all. Science is another
> > matter altogether. The actual scientific consensus at this
> > point is about as strong as it ever gets in any field.
> >
> > You, Lynn, and Shawn might as well be flat-earthers, or
> > believe that we never landed on the moon. I may

> > occasionally point out that you?re wrong, but I?m not about

> > to waste my time arguing with wilful ignorance.
>
> It the sign of an uneducated mind that resorts to calling names in the
> face of truth.

That "the scientific consensus is as strong as it gets in any field" is
scary given that climate is one of the most complex phenomena with which
we are familiar and that there is no such consensus in other fields
involving equal complexity.

It suggests that the "consensus" is among members of a clique that
shouts down or ignores any dissent.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 4/23/2016 10:06 AM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 12:57:08 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>
>> The science is not decided yet.
>
> and you know that because Rush Limbaugh disagrees with it?
> Or is it the republican politicians who argue that God won't let it happen as they're the chosen people?
>

>> Yes, Global Warming has been going for the last 10,000+ years. However, Anthropogenic Global
>> Warming is a hypothesis at best. AGW is not a theory. AGW is not a law. AGW is a hypothesis.
>

> Again, what's your actual basis for making this claim which is in opposition to basically all of the scientific experts and peer reviewed papers?
> Try and avoid the paranoid right wing sits claiming a conspiracy and actually give us scientific observations and facts.

>>
>> The proposed CO2 limits are going to kill at least 50% of the population of the planet.
>

> Sources, again ignoring right wing conspiracy sites.

>
>> First, the proposed CO2 limits will move the
>> middle class in the USA into the bottom class due to the massive job losses.
>

> You don't think that building renewable resource power plants, improving housing insulation for efficiency etc will create jobs?
>
> There's been modelling conducted in Australia which shows that South Australia can have it's energy usage 100% renewable driven (a combination of wind power, solar, solar thermal and biofuel. There's also the option of pumped hydro, wave power etc...
>
> Now other places may need different balances, however Tasmania has been almost entirely Hydro powered for a long time (we've occasionally used backup diesel generators and in the last 10 years there's been a connection to the mainland which allows transfer of power both ways, I'm unsure of whether we've exported or imported more power)

>
>> Then the food rationing will come as the farmers can no
>> longer afford the fossil fuels needed for agriculture. BTW, 25% of the fossil fuels used in the USA are for agriculture.
>

> according to
> http://www.sustainabletable.org/982/agriculture-energy-climate-change
> fertilizer production is about 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> A large impact is apparently the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers which produce nitrous oxide and also produce runoff causing large problems for water quality, including algae blooms iirc
>
> Seeing as in the US and Canada 50% of fertilizer is used for feed crops for animals there are changes which can be made there.
> Reducing the consumption of meat would be a major factor in reducing emissions
>
> Maybe we need to do something about replacing the fertilizer we make from fossil fuels with something made from the manure that we now put into manure lagoons and leave to break down to methane.
>
> Maybe rather than catching fish off of maine, sending it to china to be fileted and shipping it back to the USA it'd make more sense to process it in the USA...
>
> Maybe rather than exporting 1.4 billion tons of beef and importing 3 billion tons of beef the USA could import 1.6 billion tons of beef (or reduce beef consumption by about 5% so they don't need to import any)

>>
>> I wonder how Galileo felt when all of the scientists around him bowed to the church and joined in the consensus that the Sun revolved
>> around the Earth. It must have been horrible knowing he was right and the others were just following policy in the ten+ years of his
>> house arrest after his conviction for heresy.
>>
>

> Wow, I haven't seen the "they all laughed at Galileo" argument in ages, it's not a particularly good attempt at it but I'll give you points for bringing back a classic.
> Note that while people may have laughed at Galileo they definitely laughed at Bozo the clown.

Optimizing energy usage is awesome. My customers spend most of their
time optimizing plants to use energy in a more efficient manner. Or,
they spend their time trying to debottleneck processes so that they can
make more of their product(s) so that they do not have to build more
plants to make more. But you cannot optimize yourself into generating
all energy.

Electricity is a force multiplier. The big cities cannot survive
without large quantities of electricity. We need a way of generating
electricity on a timely and predictable basis. Remember, all generated
electricity is used less than a microsecond later.

Wanna optimize the entire world's energy usage? Figure out how to store
electricity without having to convert it into water pumped storage,
hydrogen, compressed air, or something along those lines. Even storing
electricity for a week without losing half of it would be a major
advancement. And, make it cheap! You'll make a fortune!

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

Plus I am seeing claims that 95% of scientists believe in global
warming. I do so also. But I am also starting to see that only 70% of
scientists believe that humans cause global warming or, a significant
percentage of that.

Simulation of the Earth's energy balance is hugely complex and not 100%
understood. I am not sure that it will ever be understood enough to
seriously consider formulating national policy on it.

China will be producing twice the amount of CO2 that the USA is
currently producing very soon. I wonder if these people are willing to
go to war to stop them from doing so.

Lynn

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> Have you even tried looking it up? The hottest year on record currently
> is 2015, and right now it looks like 2016 is on the way to break that
> record. 15 of the 16 hottest years on record occurred after 2001.

Medieval Warm Period was warmer.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Actually, no, it was not. The MWP was warmer in SOME but not all areas
of the globe, and averaged it's well below current levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/04/2016 12:16 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nfg4f1$dhm$1...@dont-email.me>, dtr...@sonic.net says...
>>

>> But is a useful statement for helping determine who is paying the
>> doctor's travel expenses and speaking fees.
>
> In any case there has never been any objection to "figuring out new and
> less polluting way to make energy for our use" and in fact we have a
> great many of them.
>
> The objection comes when someone starts demanding that the government
> force us against our will to abandon our exising means of making energy
> in favor of the "new and less polluting" means even though that will
> mean that energy costs increase.
>

Where I live, energy costs have already increased dramatically. Firstly
because the government was proposing to privatise it so they put prices
up to make it more attractive to buyers. Secondly, because of this price
rise, millions of people installed solar panels and solar water heating
with the result that the electricity board has had to increase prices
again to remain solvent. They have also sacked hundreds of workers. The
real cost of producing electricity has little to do with its actual
cost, but coal driven power stations cause pollution that creates a
number of problems quite separate from climate change.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 23/04/2016 1:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 10:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <nfeo3j$88s$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
>>>

>>> On 4/22/2016 9:34 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:58:24 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
>>>> in<news:dnvvlj...@mid.individual.net> in
>>>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/04/2016 2:05 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> The "Nobel prize winner" is Professor Ivar Giaver.
>>>>> "Giaever, a former professor at the School of
>>>>> Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic
>>>>> Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work
>>>>> on quantum tunneling."
>>>>
>>>>> -- In other words, he knows no more about climate than
>>>>> any layman.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, he probably knows more than *some* laymen; he also
>>>> undoubtedly knows *less* than some laymen. It would be
>>>> better to say that there is no reason to suppose that he
>>>> has the kind of knowledge that would justify paying him
>>>> serious attention when the people with genuine expertise
>>>> almost unanimously disagree with him.
>>>>
>>>> The author of that piece is a liar, presenting a misleading
>>>> 2010 document as if it were current and honest, and a

>>>> hypocrite: science *has* decided, and it?s jerks like him

>>>> who are making it a political issue. (Mind you, the
>>>> question of how to deal with it is legitimately a political

>>>> issue, but that?s not what he?s on about: he?s pretending

>>>> that the existence of the problem is a political issue.)
>>>>

>>>> He?s contemptible.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>
>>> The science is not decided yet. Yes, Global Warming has been going

>>> for the last 10,000+ years. However, Anthropogenic Global
>>> Warming is a hypothesis at best. AGW is not a theory. AGW is not a
>>> law. AGW is a hypothesis.
>>>

>>> The proposed CO2 limits are going to kill at least 50% of the

>>> population of the planet. First, the proposed CO2 limits will move the

>>> middle class in the USA into the bottom class due to the massive job

>>> losses. Then the food rationing will come as the farmers can no

>>> longer afford the fossil fuels needed for agriculture. BTW, 25% of
>>> the fossil fuels used in the USA are for agriculture.
>>>

>>> I wonder how Galileo felt when all of the scientists around him bowed
>>> to the church and joined in the consensus that the Sun revolved
>>> around the Earth. It must have been horrible knowing he was right
>>> and the others were just following policy in the ten+ years of his
>>> house arrest after his conviction for heresy.
>>

>> Galileo knew the Pope personally and went out of his way to piss him
>> off. He wasn't punished for being right, he was punished for being an
>> asshole.
>
> Got reference?

I haven't got a reference, but I have read something similar.

[Robert Bannister]

People are already installing batteries and cutting themselves off
partially or permanently from the grid system. The batteries are still
far too expensive for me, but now people have started buying, the price
will drop, and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
stations will only be required for special needs like railways. I'm
beginning to think you must have heavy investments in coal mining.

[Cryptoengineer]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in news:nfglal$b9h$1...@dont-email.me:

> Working in the oil and natural industry for most of my life,[...]
^gas, I assume.

Without addressing the merits of you position, this was interesting.

I'd been wondering if you had some personal reason for views you've
been expressing.

As they say:

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <do2kfm...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

Don't assume this. If they are new technology that is subject to
economies of scale it might happen, but batteries aren't new and have
been mass-produced for decades.

> and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
> stations will only be required for special needs like railways.

Until people start figuring out how much it costs them to "drop out of
the electrical grid".

[Lynn McGuire]

The plan is to rebate 1/2 of the new CO2 tax to all families in the USA.
It will become a new entitlement. Kind of a Basic Income. The CO2
tax will be regressive as all use taxes are. The other half will go
into the government general fund.

Of course, all of this is fluid. Very fluid. The EPA believes that
they can implement this without congressional approval. Congress is
telling them that they cannot behind closed doors. Who knows what will
really happen?

I thought it was going to happen a year or two ago. Now I am fairly
sure that the EPA is waiting to see who wins the general election in Nov.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

Thanks for the gas!

The upstream and midstream oil and natural gas industries in the USA
have laid off a million people in the last 18 months. These were high
paying, $25/hr to $100/hr, jobs. The effects are slowly filtering
through the economy. I've been very surprised that the housing market
in Houston is still in the positive. Maybe the cheap gasoline and cheap
electricity are moderating the effects of all of the job losses. Or
maybe all of the expansion in the downstream industries is moderating
the effects, I just do not know.

There were fifteen million people working in the upstream, midstream,
and downstream oil and natural gas industries in the USA. Now it is
fourteen million. I am not sure if the fossil electric utilities are
included in these numbers. Lay half of these people off due to a new
CO2 tax and the economy will have a big problem.

Lynn

[Cryptoengineer]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.3185f9e58...@news.eternal-september.org:

I'm actively looking at installing solar on my roof. My research
shows that (at least in the US) the vast majority of home installations
do not involve batteries, or 'going off grid'. Here, utiliities are
required to implement 'net-metering' under which they will buy back
power from householders who produce it at the same rate they sell it.

Thus, on a sunny weekday afternoon, my house would be producing far
more power than it needs (no one being home) and would be running
my meter backwards. On a winter evening, when I'm using power and
not generating any, I buy power from the utility.

>> and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
>> stations will only be required for special needs like railways.

> Until people start figuring out how much it costs them to "drop out of
> the electrical grid".

At the moment, that's not an economically sound idea, and few do it.
There are companies (including Tesla) that will sell you batteries for
this, but the numbers just don't work out yet.

At the moment, the payback time for an installation is 5-7 years.

I get a *lot* of cold calls from companies that want to lease
me panels on a 'zero down' basis, but research shows that that's a
ripoff - you do far better if you buy or finance them, and own
them outright.

pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Batteries are just an electricity storage device. Where does the
electricity come from? And, the battery storage systems are still
expensive. Do any of them last past 3 years? 5 years? Daily cycling
is tough on a battery system. Plus the conversion from AC to DC and
back to AC is a very lossy transformation.

Sorry, no coal mine nor coal utility investments here. I sold all that
stock when I left that business in 1989 and got back into the oil and
natural gas business.

My interest here is that I like reliable electricity and cheap
electricity. Both of these will go away with a CO2 tax.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA5F3EA6C5C...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

Which is a rather dubious scheme in that the utilities still have to pay
the capital costs of enough installed power to handle the expected load
when your solar isn't working. Of course if you're in Californica they
seem to _want_ you to believe that there's an energy shortage by
preventing the utilities from building enough generating capacity to
handle the load.

> Thus, on a sunny weekday afternoon, my house would be producing far
> more power than it needs (no one being home) and would be running
> my meter backwards. On a winter evening, when I'm using power and
> not generating any, I buy power from the utility.

And so will everyone else's and so the utility is paying out for energy
that it can't sell to anyone and ends up losing money and going broke.

> >> and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
> >> stations will only be required for special needs like railways.
>
> > Until people start figuring out how much it costs them to "drop out of
> > the electrical grid".
>
> At the moment, that's not an economically sound idea, and few do it.
> There are companies (including Tesla) that will sell you batteries for
> this, but the numbers just don't work out yet.
>
> At the moment, the payback time for an installation is 5-7 years.

And how long do the batteries last?

[Lynn McGuire]

My HOA here in Texas will not let you install a solar system on your
roof. I have no idea how to get around this.

Those Tesla systems are only 2 kw peak power. My home would need 3 to 5
of them (I am not sure). My office building would need 10 of them.
https://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

Lynn

[Cryptoengineer]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in news:nfhdnc$j74$1...@dont-email.me:

That sucks. You're in a much better location to benefit from PV than
I am.

> Those Tesla systems are only 2 kw peak power. My home would need 3 to
> 5 of them (I am not sure). My office building would need 10 of them.
> https://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

I completely agree. Batteries are not yet the solution.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:MPG.318603deb...@news.eternal-september.org:

That's a valid point; without energy storage, utilities have to have the
capacity to take the full load when solar can't hack it. Nonetheless, the
reduction in the emision of greenhouse gases might make it worth it.

>> Thus, on a sunny weekday afternoon, my house would be producing far
>> more power than it needs (no one being home) and would be running
>> my meter backwards. On a winter evening, when I'm using power and
>> not generating any, I buy power from the utility.
>
> And so will everyone else's and so the utility is paying out for
> energy that it can't sell to anyone and ends up losing money and going
> broke.

I'm ok with that, if there's ways to deal it (batteries, stored hydro,
whatever). Burning dinosaurs isn't the only business model for a utility.

>> >> and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
>> >> stations will only be required for special needs like railways.
>>
>> > Until people start figuring out how much it costs them to "drop out
>> > of the electrical grid".
>>
>> At the moment, that's not an economically sound idea, and few do it.
>> There are companies (including Tesla) that will sell you batteries
>> for this, but the numbers just don't work out yet.
>>
>> At the moment, the payback time for an installation is 5-7 years.
>
> And how long do the batteries last?

Did you read my post? Most installations don't involve batteries.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <nfgr4d$us5$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

>

>
> It's being treated JUST LIKE other sciences. I.e., if the vast majority
> of the people *in that field* (not "other scientists") say X is true,
> it's probably true. Which is the way it, and the other fields of
> science, are treated: 95%+ of physicists agree on virtually all aspects
> of the field, 95%+ of chemists agree on their field, and so on.
>
> There's just an awful lot of people who REALLYREALLYREALLY don't want
> to believe what their results are, and a lot of them are connected to
> people that have vested interests in those results not being true.

While the rest of us wonder if great influence (or wealth anyway) is
directly connected to magical thinking on a scary scale... Oh, and
watch Greenland melt.

--

Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA5F3F32EC3...@216.166.97.131>,

Who pays for the excess unused capacity?

>
> >> Thus, on a sunny weekday afternoon, my house would be producing far
> >> more power than it needs (no one being home) and would be running
> >> my meter backwards. On a winter evening, when I'm using power and
> >> not generating any, I buy power from the utility.
> >
> > And so will everyone else's and so the utility is paying out for
> > energy that it can't sell to anyone and ends up losing money and going
> > broke.
>
> I'm ok with that, if there's ways to deal it (batteries, stored hydro,
> whatever). Burning dinosaurs isn't the only business model for a utility.

And yet when they try to go to a different model the "save the Earth"
types come out and picket and sue and chain themselves to equipment and
otherwise create such a huge mess that the utilities have given up
trying.

> >> >> and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
> >> >> stations will only be required for special needs like railways.
> >>
> >> > Until people start figuring out how much it costs them to "drop out
> >> > of the electrical grid".
> >>
> >> At the moment, that's not an economically sound idea, and few do it.
> >> There are companies (including Tesla) that will sell you batteries
> >> for this, but the numbers just don't work out yet.
> >>
> >> At the moment, the payback time for an installation is 5-7 years.
> >
> > And how long do the batteries last?
>
> Did you read my post? Most installations don't involve batteries.

Which means you're still dependent on the utility that you allowed to go
broke a couple of paragraphs earlier.

Hint--if the utility company goes broke it won't be selling you any more
electricity, and won't be buying any more from you either, and nobody's
going to buy the pieces and put it back together as long as the
regulated rate structure is such that they will also go broke.

[J. Clarke]

In article <MPG.31860d2c5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
k...@invalid.net says...

The evidence seems to suggest that Greenland is _supposed_ to melt. The
Antarctic ice cores go back about 7 glaciation cycles, Greenland drilled
to bedrock only goes back to the beginning of the current one. That
suggests that Greenland might have melted completely at the end of the
previous one.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Not even close. The oldest Greenland ice core goes back about 150,000
years, while the last ice age ended less than 1/10th of that time ago.

[Cryptoengineer]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:nfile9$1bu$1...@dont-email.me:

That's not the point. If the oldest ice didn't predate the *start*
of the most recent Ice Age, then the JC's argument that it all
melts during interglacials would carry weight.

But, in fact, the oldest ice is older than that, going back to
the *previous* Ice Age:

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2010/07/31/oldest-greenland-ice-
core-recovered/
Re the 150,000 year old ice:
"This was during the ice age that preceded the Eemian. The Eemian is the
warm period before our last ice age. This means we now have an ice core
that goes all the way back through the Holocene (The warm period after
the last ice age in which we now live), the ice age before the Holocene,
and then the warm period before the last ice age (The Eemian) and finally
into the penultimate ice age before the Eemian!"

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:MPG.31867881c...@news.eternal-september.org:

We do. ultimately. There's a lot of work on improving electricity
storage mechanisms. In an ideal world, we'd add non-carbon
capacity (renewables and nukes), and storage capacity for bursty
sources like PV and wind, at a rate that matches that at which
carbon-producing plants are retired.

>> >> Thus, on a sunny weekday afternoon, my house would be producing
>> >> far more power than it needs (no one being home) and would be
>> >> running my meter backwards. On a winter evening, when I'm using
>> >> power and not generating any, I buy power from the utility.
>> >
>> > And so will everyone else's and so the utility is paying out for
>> > energy that it can't sell to anyone and ends up losing money and
>> > going broke.
>>
>> I'm ok with that, if there's ways to deal it (batteries, stored
>> hydro, whatever). Burning dinosaurs isn't the only business model for
>> a utility.
>
> And yet when they try to go to a different model the "save the Earth"
> types come out and picket and sue and chain themselves to equipment
> and otherwise create such a huge mess that the utilities have given up
> trying.

Painting folk with awfully broad brush there, aren't you?
Sure, there's an anti-nuke crowd out there, and a NIMBY
crowd, and a BANANA crowd, but most people who are concerned
about AGW aren't that type.

>> >> >> and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
>> >> >> stations will only be required for special needs like railways.
>> >>
>> >> > Until people start figuring out how much it costs them to "drop
>> >> > out of the electrical grid".
>> >>
>> >> At the moment, that's not an economically sound idea, and few do
>> >> it. There are companies (including Tesla) that will sell you
>> >> batteries for this, but the numbers just don't work out yet.
>> >>
>> >> At the moment, the payback time for an installation is 5-7 years.
>> >
>> > And how long do the batteries last?
>>
>> Did you read my post? Most installations don't involve batteries.
>
> Which means you're still dependent on the utility that you allowed to
> go broke a couple of paragraphs earlier.

> Hint--if the utility company goes broke it won't be selling you any
> more electricity, and won't be buying any more from you either, and
> nobody's going to buy the pieces and put it back together as long as
> the regulated rate structure is such that they will also go broke.

Utilities are allowed to charge at a rate that makes them profitable.
That's why utility bonds are one of the safest investments out there.
I was being flippant when I said I was OK with them going broke; they
won't.

pt

[William December Starr]

In article <nfdov0$3s4$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:

> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/
>

> "With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the
> Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the
> document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back
> seat at the United Nations."
>
> "The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make
> up the U.N.'s climate panel recruit scientists to research
> the climate issue. And they place only those who will
> produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology
> have replaced science."
>
> "U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a
> "centralized transformation" that is "going to make the life
> of everyone on the planet very different" to combat the
> alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are
> looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?"

Oh look: it's somebody's opinion.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <nfera8$6v9$1...@news.datemas.de>,
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> said:

> First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the
> "measured" average temperature increase in 100 years or so,
> is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it
> has become warmer, why is everything better than before?

Wow. Do you have _any_ idea what you just did to to your own
credibility there? Any at all?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <nfgt7c$7t5$2...@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:

> On 4/23/2016 3:43 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> "Science" is what you deniers are appealing to, when you

>> bother to appeal to anything at all. Science is another
>> matter altogether. The actual scientific consensus at this
>> point is about as strong as it ever gets in any field.
>>
>> You, Lynn, and Shawn might as well be flat-earthers, or
>> believe that we never landed on the moon. I may

>> occasionally point out that you're wrong, but I'm not about

>> to waste my time arguing with wilful ignorance.
>
> It the sign of an uneducated mind that resorts to calling
> names in the face of truth.

That may be true, but it's irrelevant here since Brian wasn't
responding to truth.

-- wds

[Alan Baker]

Do you have ANY idea whose words those were or what quotation marks mean?

[Alan Baker]

Spoken like a true fanatic.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I loved the post where the poster was arguing against AGW saying that
"only" 70% of the people studying climate had concluded that human
action was part of the cause. A 70% vote for a candidate in an election
would be considered a massive landslide victory and uncontrovertable
mandate by the voters.

--
Privacy IS Security

[Alan Baker]

Science is not a election.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-23, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Have you even tried looking it up? The hottest year on record currently
>> is 2015, and right now it looks like 2016 is on the way to break that
>> record. 15 of the 16 hottest years on record occurred after 2001.
>
> Medieval Warm Period was warmer.

Possibly true but totally irrelevant to the statement you're responding to;
temperatures from centuries ago are not "on record" in anything like the same
way as recent decades' actually-measured-by-thermometer-at-the-time temps.

For that matter, back when the Earth was forming and asteroids were still
crashing into it? That was undeniably warmer. But also irrelevant.

Dave, and with a good deal less of the major greenhouse gas, H2O, in the
atmosphere as well! PROOF, I say proof, that greenhouse gases cannot possibly
have ANY influence at all, Satanic or otherwise, on climate!!1!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[William Hyde]

The Greenland ice sheet is at least two million years old, but that does not imply that there is any two million year old ice there now. Certainly not at any given point. Ice sheets do not lose mass only from their surfaces.

Long ago I was at a presentation where Sigfus Johnsen presented results from the first ice core to reach the base. The age model had been abandoned far from base (as you get lower in the ice sheet the increased age/unit distance goes up rapidly to the point where reconstructing age by counting annual layers or flow models is impossible). I asked him how old he guessed the bottom of the core to be, and he replied, jokingly, "2.3 million years". Which was a polite way of telling me not to ask silly questions at nine in the morning.

In fact the last interglacial is present in the cores. Even more, as the precipitation was higher in that warmer climate, one can even count annual layers in some cores, as we can for modern deposits but not, say, for middle-ice-age deposits.


William Hyde

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 4:34:51 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> >> Have you even tried looking it up? The hottest year on record currently
> >> is 2015, and right now it looks like 2016 is on the way to break that
> >> record. 15 of the 16 hottest years on record occurred after 2001.
> >
> >
> >
> > Medieval Warm Period was warmer.
> >
>
>
>

> Actually, no, it was not.



Actually, yes, it was.


> The MWP was warmer in SOME but not all areas
> of the globe, and averaged it's well below current levels.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm


Nope.

Note that the 'evidence' they cite is two entirely different temperature series. Can't do that. Statistics 101.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 17:36:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:nfgt7c$7t5$2...@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 4/23/2016 3:43 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 19:40:10 -0700, Alan Baker
>> <alang...@telus.net> wrote
>> in<news:nfenaa$l6s$2...@news.datemas.de> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> Sorry, Brian, but "science" is nowhere near as decided as
>>> the proponents of AGW are claiming.

>> “Science” is what you deniers are appealing to, when you

>> bother to appeal to anything at all. Science is another
>> matter altogether. The actual scientific consensus at this
>> point is about as strong as it ever gets in any field.

>> You, Lynn, and Shawn might as well be flat-earthers, or
>> believe that we never landed on the moon. I may
>> occasionally point out that you’re wrong, but I’m not about
>> to waste my time arguing with wilful ignorance.

> It the sign of an uneducated mind that resorts to calling
> names in the face of truth.

I was responding to falsehoods, not truth. And my
statement about you is simply a statement of fact: you
fiercely maintain an irrational belief in the face of
massive evidence against it, something that does put you in
the same class as flat-earthers and folk who believe that
we never landed on the moon, not to mention young-earth
creationists and proponents of ‘intelligent design’. It is
no more ‘calling names’ to point this out than it is to
point out that Michael Savage is a bigot or that Pamela
Geller is an Islamophobe.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:


> > Medieval Warm Period was warmer.
>
> Possibly true but totally irrelevant to the statement you're responding to;
> temperatures from centuries ago are not "on record" in anything like the same
> way as recent decades' actually-measured-by-thermometer-at-the-time temps.

When climatologists stop citing historic temperature reconstructions, then I will too.

> For that matter, back when the Earth was forming and asteroids were still
> crashing into it? That was undeniably warmer. But also irrelevant.

Well, no, it is not "irrelevant". It is in fact exactly on point. We KNOW that temperatures can and do warm without human intervention. In fact from the historical record, the 'baseline' earth temperature is actually warmer than current. We aren't so much warming as leaving an unusually cold spell. So what makes you think current warming has anything to do with human activity?

'Well, maybe...' is not science. PROVE IT.

> Dave, and with a good deal less of the major greenhouse gas, H2O, in the
> atmosphere as well! PROOF, I say proof, that greenhouse gases cannot possibly
> have ANY influence at all, Satanic or otherwise, on climate!!1!

The real climate is more complicated than a test tube. It has negative feedback loops.

[Lynn McGuire]

I am fairly sure that Warren Buffett does not agree with you for two
billion reasons:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/even-warren-buffett-isnt-making-money-on-energy-future-holdings/

Nor do the investors for PG&E like my father in law:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-Files-for-Bankruptcy-9-billion-in-debt-2933945.php

Lynn

[Robert Bannister]

Solar, wind or whatever, but for private purposes solar is most popular,
and of course most of Australia is very sunny.

And, the battery storage systems are still
> expensive. Do any of them last past 3 years? 5 years? Daily cycling
> is tough on a battery system. Plus the conversion from AC to DC and
> back to AC is a very lossy transformation.

No arguments. In addition, I imagine disposal of the dead batteries
would also be a cause for concern.

>
> Sorry, no coal mine nor coal utility investments here. I sold all that
> stock when I left that business in 1989 and got back into the oil and
> natural gas business.
>
> My interest here is that I like reliable electricity and cheap
> electricity. Both of these will go away with a CO2 tax.

Apologies for suspecting you of having sinister motives. Unfortunately,
electricity prices are regulated by the state government here, whether
ownership is state or private. They were artificially held down for a
number of years, but lately we have had a massive price hike, which is
why so many people have switched to solar. For a while, I was breaking
more or less even - for six months, they owed me money and then during
the colder six months I owed them about the same amount - but lately,
I'm having to pay more than I get back.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[William December Starr]

In article <nfj05j$1nf$4...@news.datemas.de>,
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> said:

> William December Starr wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:
>>> On 4/23/2016 3:43 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Science" is what you deniers are appealing to, when you
>>>> bother to appeal to anything at all. Science is another
>>>> matter altogether. The actual scientific consensus at this
>>>> point is about as strong as it ever gets in any field.
>>>>
>>>> You, Lynn, and Shawn might as well be flat-earthers, or
>>>> believe that we never landed on the moon. I may
>>>> occasionally point out that you're wrong, but I'm not about
>>>> to waste my time arguing with wilful ignorance.
>>>
>>> It the sign of an uneducated mind that resorts to calling
>>> names in the face of truth.
>>
>> That may be true, but it's irrelevant here since Brian wasn't
>> responding to truth.
>

> Spoken like a true fanatic.

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a mindless fanatic! I know the TRVTH!!!""

-- wds

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:19:43 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:
|
|
|> > Medieval Warm Period was warmer.
|>
|> Possibly true but totally irrelevant to the statement you're responding to;
|> temperatures from centuries ago are not "on record" in anything like the same
|> way as recent decades' actually-measured-by-thermometer-at-the-time temps.
|
|
| When climatologists stop citing historic temperature reconstructions, then I will too.
|
|
|
|
|
|> For that matter, back when the Earth was forming and asteroids were still
|> crashing into it? That was undeniably warmer. But also irrelevant.
|
|
| Well, no, it is not "irrelevant". It is in fact exactly on point. We KNOW that
| temperatures can and do warm without human intervention. In fact from the historical
| record, the 'baseline' earth temperature is actually warmer than current. We aren't
| so much warming as leaving an unusually cold spell. So what makes you think current
| warming has anything to do with human activity?
|
| 'Well, maybe...' is not science. PROVE IT.

Since the AGW hypothesis says that (part/some/most of) the recent
warming is due to CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity, the
obvious way to test this is for humans to stop adding CO2 to the
atmosphere. If the atmospheric %age of CO2 then declines, and the
average temprature drops, I'd say that would be strong confirmation of
AGW.

Aren't you against stopping CO2 emissions? It's like you don't want
proof.

|> Dave, and with a good deal less of the major greenhouse gas, H2O, in the
|> atmosphere as well! PROOF, I say proof, that greenhouse gases cannot possibly
|> have ANY influence at all, Satanic or otherwise, on climate!!1!
|
|
| The real climate is more complicated than a test tube. It has negative feedback loops.

--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[Lynn McGuire]

On 4/24/2016 11:44 PM, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:19:43 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:
> |
> |
> |> > Medieval Warm Period was warmer.
> |>
> |> Possibly true but totally irrelevant to the statement you're responding to;
> |> temperatures from centuries ago are not "on record" in anything like the same
> |> way as recent decades' actually-measured-by-thermometer-at-the-time temps.
> |
> |
> | When climatologists stop citing historic temperature reconstructions, then I will too.
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |> For that matter, back when the Earth was forming and asteroids were still
> |> crashing into it? That was undeniably warmer. But also irrelevant.
> |
> |
> | Well, no, it is not "irrelevant". It is in fact exactly on point. We KNOW that
> | temperatures can and do warm without human intervention. In fact from the historical
> | record, the 'baseline' earth temperature is actually warmer than current. We aren't
> | so much warming as leaving an unusually cold spell. So what makes you think current
> | warming has anything to do with human activity?
> |
> | 'Well, maybe...' is not science. PROVE IT.
>
>
> Since the AGW hypothesis says that (part/some/most of) the recent
> warming is due to CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity, the
> obvious way to test this is for humans to stop adding CO2 to the
> atmosphere. If the atmospheric %age of CO2 then declines, and the
> average temprature drops, I'd say that would be strong confirmation of
> AGW.
>
> Aren't you against stopping CO2 emissions? It's like you don't want
> proof.

Good test. Would you be willing to put up a bond of five trillion
dollars for possible damage to the USA economy?

Oh wait, I am betting that you are talking about all CO2 emissions
planet wide. Do you have a plan for getting China, #1, and India, #2,
to curtail their CO2 emissions that does not involve nuclear weapons?

Lynn

[Alan Baker]

That was pretty much what the person to whom I replied said, yes.

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA5F47642A1...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

Which translates to "it didn't _all_ melt". Where's the rest of the
Eemian? It's there in Antarctica.

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA5F478277A...@216.166.97.131>,

When you have something that works, everywhere, not just where there's
geography convenient for pumped storage, get back to us.

> In an ideal world, we'd add non-carbon
> capacity (renewables and nukes), and storage capacity for bursty
> sources like PV and wind, at a rate that matches that at which
> carbon-producing plants are retired.

And when we have an ideal world in which nuclear energy is politically
viable, get back to us.

> >> >> Thus, on a sunny weekday afternoon, my house would be producing
> >> >> far more power than it needs (no one being home) and would be
> >> >> running my meter backwards. On a winter evening, when I'm using
> >> >> power and not generating any, I buy power from the utility.
> >> >
> >> > And so will everyone else's and so the utility is paying out for
> >> > energy that it can't sell to anyone and ends up losing money and
> >> > going broke.
> >>
> >> I'm ok with that, if there's ways to deal it (batteries, stored
> >> hydro, whatever). Burning dinosaurs isn't the only business model for
> >> a utility.
> >
> > And yet when they try to go to a different model the "save the Earth"
> > types come out and picket and sue and chain themselves to equipment
> > and otherwise create such a huge mess that the utilities have given up
> > trying.
>
> Painting folk with awfully broad brush there, aren't you?

Nope. It's what happens.

> Sure, there's an anti-nuke crowd out there, and a NIMBY
> crowd, and a BANANA crowd, but most people who are concerned
> about AGW aren't that type.

So where are they when the "other" type are creating a mess?

> >> >> >> and as more people drop out of the national grid, power
> >> >> >> stations will only be required for special needs like railways.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Until people start figuring out how much it costs them to "drop
> >> >> > out of the electrical grid".
> >> >>
> >> >> At the moment, that's not an economically sound idea, and few do
> >> >> it. There are companies (including Tesla) that will sell you
> >> >> batteries for this, but the numbers just don't work out yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> At the moment, the payback time for an installation is 5-7 years.
> >> >
> >> > And how long do the batteries last?
> >>
> >> Did you read my post? Most installations don't involve batteries.
> >
> > Which means you're still dependent on the utility that you allowed to
> > go broke a couple of paragraphs earlier.
>
> > Hint--if the utility company goes broke it won't be selling you any
> > more electricity, and won't be buying any more from you either, and
> > nobody's going to buy the pieces and put it back together as long as
> > the regulated rate structure is such that they will also go broke.
>
> Utilities are allowed to charge at a rate that makes them profitable.

Which means that everyone's rates go up to pay you for your solar panels
that the utility doesn't need or want.

> That's why utility bonds are one of the safest investments out there.
> I was being flippant when I said I was OK with them going broke; they
> won't.

Unless they do.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nfj0od$i5k$1...@dont-email.me>, dtr...@sonic.net says...

But not sufficient to amend the Constitution.

[J. Clarke]

In article <slrnnhr862.s...@andor.dropbear.id.au>,
newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au says...

>
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:19:43 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:
> |
> |
> |> > Medieval Warm Period was warmer.
> |>
> |> Possibly true but totally irrelevant to the statement you're responding to;
> |> temperatures from centuries ago are not "on record" in anything like the same
> |> way as recent decades' actually-measured-by-thermometer-at-the-time temps.
> |
> |
> | When climatologists stop citing historic temperature reconstructions, then I will too.
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |> For that matter, back when the Earth was forming and asteroids were still
> |> crashing into it? That was undeniably warmer. But also irrelevant.
> |
> |
> | Well, no, it is not "irrelevant". It is in fact exactly on point. We KNOW that
> | temperatures can and do warm without human intervention. In fact from the historical
> | record, the 'baseline' earth temperature is actually warmer than current. We aren't
> | so much warming as leaving an unusually cold spell. So what makes you think current
> | warming has anything to do with human activity?
> |
> | 'Well, maybe...' is not science. PROVE IT.
>
>
> Since the AGW hypothesis says that (part/some/most of) the recent
> warming is due to CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity, the
> obvious way to test this is for humans to stop adding CO2 to the
> atmosphere. If the atmospheric %age of CO2 then declines, and the
> average temprature drops, I'd say that would be strong confirmation of
> AGW.

And if that happens and then we can't stop the cooling before there's a
mile of ice over the island formerly known as "New York", then what?

> Aren't you against stopping CO2 emissions? It's like you don't want
> proof.

I don't know about him, but I'm against spending massive amounts of
money trying to "fix" problems on the say-so of a bunch of
climatologists who haven't convinced me that they actually understand
the situation.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nfk8mm$ovk$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

When did India become #2? As for 2015 they were #3 with about 1/3 the
emissions of the US and about 1/6 of China.

[William December Starr]

In article <MPG.3187bb20d...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:

> I don't know about him, but I'm against spending massive amounts
> of money trying to "fix" problems on the say-so of a bunch of
> climatologists who haven't convinced me that they actually
> understand the situation.

s/haven't/cannot no matter what, because I won't let them/

-- wds

[Richard Hershberger]

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:29:20 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 4/22/16 9:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2016-04-22 5:58 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:

> >> On 23/04/2016 2:05 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>> "Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view"
> >>>
> >>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris
> >>> climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is
> >>> obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations."
> >>>
> >>> "The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the
> >>> U.N.'s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue.
> >>> And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money,
> >>> politics and ideology have replaced science."
> >>>
> >>> "U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a "centralized
> >>> transformation" that is "going to make the life of everyone on the
> >>> planet very different" to combat the alleged global warming threat. How
> >>> many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their
> >>> lives?"
> >>

> >> The "Nobel prize winner" is Professor Ivar Giaver.
> >> "Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of
> >> Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics
> >> Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling."
> >>
> >> -- In other words, he knows no more about climate than any layman.
> >
> > No. You cannot say that.
>
>
> Well, we can't say for certain he hasn't read up on climate and thus
> knows more than the average layman, but we CAN say that his being a
> Nobel Prize Winner in Physics is irrelevant to his views on climate; he
> has no actual QUALIFICATIONS to make any statements about climate,
> unless he went out and in addition to his (now forty year old) work in
> physics got himself an advanced degree in climatology.

N.B. The work that earned him the Nobel was done in 1960. Forty years ago he was working in biophysics. It is not clear what, if anything, he did after that. My guess is that he semi-retired, but is one of those guys who never entirely leaves, and the institution is happy to be able to say they have a Nobelist on faculty, and therefore happy to give up a bit of office space.

> Scientists and engineers are NOTORIOUS for thinking their expertise in
> their particular field translates to high expertise in ALL fields of
> engineering or science -- and being very wrong.

The Car Talk guys used to have great fun with this, whenever an engineer or scientist called in with a car problem, which said caller attempted to fix starting from first principles.

> In the category of Nobel
> Prize Winners, for instance, Paul Ehrlich is a classic example of
> "Really knows his own field,but...".

Linus Pauling says "Hello!"

Richard R. Hershberger

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-24, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The real climate is more complicated than a test tube. It has negative
> feedback loops.

So what? Negative feedback loops demonstrably never change YOUR behavior, so
why are you invoking them for the climate, which is WAY more complex than thou?

Dave, tenterhookily

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-25, J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And if that happens and then we can't stop the cooling before there's a
> mile of ice over the island formerly known as "New York", then what?

... then we call it a net win and start selling ski-lift tickets. Like duh.

> I don't know about him, but I'm against spending massive amounts of
> money trying to "fix" problems on the say-so of a bunch of
> climatologists who haven't convinced me that they actually understand
> the situation.

Well, you haven't convinced any of US that you do, much less that you're also
a climatologist and have had any of the training that they have. So ... why
does your opinion on the matter count, again? Please use both sides of the
paper if needed.

Dave, will emit scorn for food