“Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare”

[Lynn McGuire]

“Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare”
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

“If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they
would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.”

Nooooo! Say it isn’t so!

So, which one is speculative fiction? The global warming scare or the effort to create utopia?

Lynn

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:11:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:ndi0ru$7g3$1...@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> “Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare”
> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

> “If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit
> that they are not working feverishly to hold down global
> temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are
> instead consumed with the goal of holding down
> capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.”

What a crock. It’s a wonder that they can say that with a
straight face. Then again, they *are* the idiots who
claimed a few years ago that Stephen Hawking ‘wouldn't have
a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service
(NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of
his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless’.

> Nooooo! Say it isn’t so!

It isn’t.

Get your head out of your arse. You could start by reading
‘A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society
Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings’, March
2016, available at

<https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3>

Or you can read the report on it in the Guardian:

<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/mar/28/new-survey-finds-a-growing-climate-consensus-among-meteorologists>

The author of that article introduces it by pointing out:

There have been multiple scientific studies that all
concur: scientists know that climate change is
happening and it is largely caused by humans. I
recently wrote about this here, where I reviewed
the studies. It turns out that the more scientists
know about climate change, the more they are
convinced that humans are warming the planet.
In fact, the consensus is extraordinarily strong.
But it isn’t just that the vast majority of scientists
agree; it’s that the best scientist agree. We find
that the contrarian scientists tend to be less
accomplished, have had their research found to
be incorrect time after time, and they produce
less science.

All of this is easily confirmed. He continues:

So what did the survey find? First, nearly every
meteorologist (96%) agrees that climate change
is happening, and the vast majority are confident
in their opinion. Only 1% felt that climate change
isn’t happening (3% did not know). Next, a large
majority feel that climate change is being caused
by humans. For instance, 29% believe that the
change is largely or entirely human caused; 38%
think most of the change is from humans; 14%
answered that humans and natural factors are
about equally responsible. Only 5% felt that
climate change is mainly natural.

[...]

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <1krnm8f7mjsvc$.151cbvei...@40tude.net>,
b.s...@csuohio.edu says...

>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:11:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:ndi0ru$7g3$1...@dont-email.me>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>

> > ?Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare?
> > http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
>
> > ?If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit

> > that they are not working feverishly to hold down global

> > temperatures ? they would acknowledge that they are

> > instead consumed with the goal of holding down

> > capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.?
>
> What a crock. It?s a wonder that they can say that with a
> straight face.

Well, that's kind of a half-truth. There are a fair number of so-called
enviromentalists out there who are more interested in dismantling our
modern economy than protecting the environment, per se.

Of course, speaking of "the climate alarmists", like they form one
homogenous group, is remarkably dishonest, and suggesting there is a
coherent global conspiracy is actually insane. Does the publication
also give updates on the Homosexual Agenda or the Elders of Zion?

--
Juho Julkunen

[Richard Hershberger]

Note the logic: Some people use climate change as an argument to promote their own goals. Therefore climate change is not real. QED. Or, in the real world, huh?

Richard R. Hershberger

[Kevrob]

That the climate is changing (average temperatures are rising) is
something that can be verified, within the limits of historical
data that can be compared with current data.

What any activist does with the data is independent of the data.
There have always been "watermelons" on this issue - green on the
outside, red on the inside - who use environmentalism as a cover
for their statist ambitions. That doesn't mean that there isn't
a real problem that we may have to deal with, if we can.

I'm not scientifically competent to judge if the warming trends
are as bad as some say, or to speak to how much of it is
anthropogenic and how much isn't. If not enough of it is caused
by humans, trying to ameliorate it might be futile, and wouldn't
that be jolly?

I'm sympathetic to Reason Magazine's Ronald bailey, who changed his
mind on the issue, but noted that climate change doesn't mandate
any particular policies. See:

http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/03/what-evidence-would-persuade-you-that-ma/

Reason's a free market oriented magazine espousing the US version
of libertarianism. It isn't THE NATION or MOTHER JONES. One can
consider climate change a real threat without lusting after control
of the heights of the economy, or with said lust.

Kevin R

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 31 March 2016 13:48:24 UTC+1, Richard Hershberger wrote:
> Note the logic: Some people use climate change as an argument
> to promote their own goals. Therefore climate change is not real.
> QED. Or, in the real world, huh?

Indeed. For instance, substitute "terrorism".

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:12:20 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare"
> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
>
> "If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not

> working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they

> would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding
> down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state."
>
> Nooooo! Say it isn't so!
>
> So, which one is speculative fiction? The global warming scare or the effort
> to create utopia?

Notice that the quoted "United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer" is not a "climate scientist", but an economist.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:963340d2-37c1-477c...@googlegroups.com:

So he's as smart and well informed as Shawn Wilson?

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Robert Woodward]

In article <XnsA5DCD2287C1...@69.16.179.42>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:963340d2-37c1-477c...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:12:20 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire
> > wrote:
> >> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming
> >> Scare"
> >> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climat
> >> e-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
> >>
> >> "If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that
> >> they are not working feverishly to hold down global
> >> temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead
> >> consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and
> >> establishing a global welfare state."
> >>
> >> Nooooo! Say it isn't so!
> >>
> >> So, which one is speculative fiction? The global warming scare
> >> or the effort to create utopia?
> >
> > Notice that the quoted "United Nations climate official Ottmar
> > Edenhofer" is not a "climate scientist", but an economist.
> >
> So he's as smart and well informed as Shawn Wilson?

He actually has a PhD, has been employed as an economist, and has taught
classes. Thus, he is clearly smarter and better informed than Shawn.


(so would be my cat, if I had a cat).

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <robertaw-AEEA69...@news.individual.net>,
robe...@drizzle.com says...

> He actually has a PhD, has been employed as an economist, and has taught
> classes. Thus, he is clearly smarter and better informed than Shawn.
>
>
> (so would be my cat, if I had a cat).

Being hypothetical, your cat has not yet made a fool of itself. I'm
willing to give it the benefit of doubt.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Peter Moylan]

We hear that 1% of scientists (some claims go as high as 3%) are climate
change sceptics. But are they scientists? I suspect that if you looked
into it you would find a lot of mail order diplomas, theological college
graduates, and so on.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Trei]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:39:06 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:963340d2-37c1-477c...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:12:20 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire
> > wrote:
> >> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming
> >> Scare"
> >> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climat
> >> e-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
> >>
> >> "If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that
> >> they are not working feverishly to hold down global
> >> temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead
> >> consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and
> >> establishing a global welfare state."
> >>
> >> Nooooo! Say it isn't so!
> >>
> >> So, which one is speculative fiction? The global warming scare
> >> or the effort to create utopia?
> >
> > Notice that the quoted "United Nations climate official Ottmar
> > Edenhofer" is not a "climate scientist", but an economist.
> >
> So he's as smart and well informed as Shawn Wilson?

Much more so. Really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman

He does have problems. In the group (he was a regular in rasff) he
was notable for his penchant for encouraging flame wars between other
posters. ("Lets you and him fight." seemed to be his motto). He seemed
to delight in this.

Like many lifelong academic economists, he has an over-simplifed, ivory
tower view of the world in which the only thing that mattered was money
and the market (he shares this fault with fault with Shawn, but Shawn is
DF as Trump is to Bush 1).

He's also the son of a genuine Shmawt Guy: Daniel Friedmann, the Nobel
Prize winning economist), but wisely never brought that up.

pt

[Kevrob]

When you spell "Milton" as "Daniel," yeah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Saying David F only cares about money and the market is a caricature
of his views. His interests in SF/F and the SCA aside, he, like many
a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist or agorist, sees the market as a
way to maximize human freedom. I'm sure if he cared more about money
than anything else, he could have put his considerable gifts to use
conquering Wall St or the CBOT or some such.

I'm sure what some see as "starting flame wars" was a refusal to
accept planted assumptions about the status quo.

Kevin R

[Peter Trei]

Mea culpa on that one - brain fart.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
>
> Saying David F only cares about money and the market is a caricature
> of his views. His interests in SF/F and the SCA aside, he, like many
> a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist or agorist, sees the market as a
> way to maximize human freedom. I'm sure if he cared more about money
> than anything else, he could have put his considerable gifts to use
> conquering Wall St or the CBOT or some such.

It's always humbling to see that way one's statements can be misunderstood.
DF didn't seem to have much awareness of practicalities; for example, he
suggested that one of solutions to global warming was simply to move
agricultural zones further north, not realizing that former tundra makes
really crappy soil, and ignoring (because they didn't affect business)that
the changes were happening at a very fast pace compared to how quickly
biomes (such as rainforests) can move.

> I'm sure what some see as "starting flame wars" was a refusal to
> accept planted assumptions about the status quo.

That's certainly how he framed some of his interjections.

I'm thinking specifically of one case in rasff where Keith Lynch and I
had, and patched up, a dispute. DF tried to restart it by proposing new,
non-dictionary definitions of some of the words we had used.

DF is an expert on Medieval cooking, a published SF/F author, and
many more things, including (unlike Shawn) an economist. He is also a
regular at Pennsic.

But none of those things were germane in the present discussion.

pt

[Don Kuenz]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare"
> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
>
> "If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are

> not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures - they

> would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of
> holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state."
>
> Nooooo! Say it isn't so!
>
> So, which one is speculative fiction? The global warming scare or
> the effort to create utopia?

Speculative fiction is found on both sides of the global warming debate.
Global warming proponents use speculative scenarios to inculcate fear
(eg totally innocent islands drowning). Dissenters treat global warming
in toto as speculative fiction. :o)

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[Scott Lurndal]

I think dividing scientists into simple buckets doesn't provide sufficient
granularity with respect to their beliefs.

There is little doubt that humans influence climate (including emissions,
urbanization, fossil water extraction and land-use changes
(e.g. deforestation for agriculture)).

The major disagreements are related to the degree (no pun intended) to
which human influences vs. natural variation influence temperature, and
which influences are most significant (e.g. land-use/UHI vs. CO2).

Or disagreements as to the accuracy of paleoclimate data derived from
various proxies (such as tree-ring width, speleothems, borehole measurements,
et. alia).

Or disagreements about the fidelity of the global circulation models
collectively being used to predict the future.

Or disagreements about the methods used to homogenize one hundred years
of geographically limited temperature data intended to derive a
global average past temperature, particularly when much of that data
was collected and recorded by amateurs using various measurement
devices, locations and procedures.

Even when they disagree, most scientists would agree that pumping
combustion products into the atmosphere is bad for everyone, but
disagree on how to get to a point where such emissions are reduced.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote in
news:ndlsbp$na$1...@dont-email.me:

A mail order diploma in a climate related field seems, to me. to be,
at the very least, equal to a real degree in . . . anything *but* a
climate related field.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 06:35:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:eef1e727-e3d9-4449...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> Saying David F only cares about money and the market is a
> caricature of his views. His interests in SF/F and the
> SCA aside, he, like many a libertarian,
> anarcho-capitalist or agorist, sees the market as a way
> to maximize human freedom.

Unfortunately, he’s a complete ideologue: if it doesn’t fit
his ideology, it can’t be true. (It doesn’t help that he’s
lived his whole life in a privileged bubble somewhat
insulated from the wider reality.) As a result, he’s
intellectually dishonest. (To be fair, for the most part
the dishonesty appears to be unintentional, if only because
he’s unable to recognize it even when it’s pointed out.)
Combine that with a very large ego, and you have a man who
is sure for instance, that when you point out that your
system of values doesn’t work according to his model, you
are mistaken or lying. And one who is sure that he can
understand anything better than the experts in the field if
he spends a bit of time swotting up on it

He also tends to use rhetorical debater’s tricks rather
than genuine argument.

[...]

> I'm sure what some see as "starting flame wars" was a
> refusal to accept planted assumptions about the status
> quo.

Oh, David clearly glories in being a contrarian. He might
even accept your tendentious (and more than a bit
questionable) ‘planted’. But the egging on in question was
in addition to that.

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.

[Peter Trei]

Thanks. This is pretty much what I've been trying to say.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:ypt0yqj0rhvh.c...@40tude.net:

> Combine that with a very large ego, and you have a man who
> is sure for instance, that when you point out that your
> system of values doesn’t work according to his model, you
> are mistaken or lying. And one who is sure that he can
> understand anything better than the experts in the field if
> he spends a bit of time swotting up on it
>

So he's *exactly* like Shawn.

[Peter Trei]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:06:13 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:ypt0yqj0rhvh.c...@40tude.net:
>
> > Combine that with a very large ego, and you have a man who
> > is sure for instance, that when you point out that your
> > system of values doesn't work according to his model, you
> > are mistaken or lying. And one who is sure that he can
> > understand anything better than the experts in the field if
> > he spends a bit of time swotting up on it
> >
> So he's *exactly* like Shawn.

Except that he's made something of himself.
...and he actually is an economist

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:52f55d2b-834b-46d9...@googlegroups.com:

An ass, apparently, which brings us back to my premise.

> ...and he actually is an economist

I remain less the convinced that there's actually a material
difference between "actually is an economist" and "is so deluded that
he believes that having downloaded the application for admission to a
university means he has a degree and is world famous as an
economist."

Can you point me to some objective metric by which we can tell teh
difference?

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/1/16 4:49 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:52f55d2b-834b-46d9...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:06:13 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>> news:ypt0yqj0rhvh.c...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>> Combine that with a very large ego, and you have a man who
>>>> is sure for instance, that when you point out that your
>>>> system of values doesn't work according to his model, you
>>>> are mistaken or lying. And one who is sure that he can
>>>> understand anything better than the experts in the field if
>>>> he spends a bit of time swotting up on it
>>>>
>>> So he's *exactly* like Shawn.
>>
>> Except that he's made something of himself.
>
> An ass, apparently, which brings us back to my premise.
>
>> ...and he actually is an economist
>
> I remain less the convinced that there's actually a material
> difference between "actually is an economist" and "is so deluded that
> he believes that having downloaded the application for admission to a
> university means he has a degree and is world famous as an
> economist."
>
> Can you point me to some objective metric by which we can tell teh
> difference?
>

A Shawn-Economist has never actually been paid to be an "economist",
has no paper to prove any competence, and has trouble affording email.
An Actually Is Economist has been paid to be an "economist", probably
has some form of paper to prove this, and can afford to live somewhere
outside of his mom's basement. David's competent at his job, gets paid
to teach economics, and has apparently supported himself and a family.
So yeah, I think there's some objective metrics here.


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

[Peter Trei]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:49:15 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:52f55d2b-834b-46d9...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:06:13 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> > Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> >> news:ypt0yqj0rhvh.c...@40tude.net:
> >>
> >> > Combine that with a very large ego, and you have a man who
> >> > is sure for instance, that when you point out that your
> >> > system of values doesn't work according to his model, you
> >> > are mistaken or lying. And one who is sure that he can
> >> > understand anything better than the experts in the field if
> >> > he spends a bit of time swotting up on it
> >> >
> >> So he's *exactly* like Shawn.
> >
> > Except that he's made something of himself.
>
> An ass, apparently, which brings us back to my premise.
>
> > ...and he actually is an economist
>
> I remain less the convinced that there's actually a material
> difference between "actually is an economist" and "is so deluded that
> he believes that having downloaded the application for admission to a
> university means he has a degree and is world famous as an
> economist."
>
> Can you point me to some objective metric by which we can tell teh
> difference?

I don't like the guy much. However, by the criteria we've frequently
proposed to Shawn, he passes.

Read his Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman
or his home page
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/

He's recognized as one by Wikipedia, has published books on the subject,
and is cited by other economists as an influence.

He's been employed as Assistant Professor of Economics at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and Assistant Professor at UCLA, Dept of Economics.
He's currently employed as Professor of Law at Santa Clara University,
where his courses include "Economic Analysis of Law", and "History of
Economic Thought"

By everything we've discussed in this group in the past, he passes.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:ndmn2p$bcd$1...@dont-email.me:

If I had access to their tax returns, that would, perhaps, be a
useful distinction.

> and
> can afford to live somewhere outside of his mom's basement.

I wouldn't bet you the price of a cheap burger that Shawn isn't
living in the basket on the front of his bicycle.

> David's competent at his job, gets paid to teach economics, and
> has apparently supported himself and a family. So yeah, I think
> there's some objective metrics here.
>

None that are visible here, though. They're both assholes, they're
both prone to pontificating about shit they know nothing about, and
they both rip off Big Bang Theory with the claim that literally
everything in the entire usiverse can be compeltely and totally
understood in terms of their claimed speciality (despite the
conclusive proof that they don't know their ass from a hole in the
ground on most subjects).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:858a0524-051b-4853...@googlegroups.com:

And yet, it seems to make zero difference in his behavior. That's
the real point, here. I'm wondering if all those qualifications
actually mean anything, when he acts the same as Shawn anyway.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dffe0254-4b83-4a6e...@googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com says...

It's not just that. The paleo records suggest that we are due for a
brief temperature spike followed by a rapid cooling right about now and
if that happens then the rapid cooling won't stop until there are
several kilometers of ice over New York.

So, is "anthropogenic global warming" _preventing_ this? If so then
abrupt cessation would seem to be a _very_ bad idea.

And I don't know of any of the "expert" climate models that show that
the spike and decline would happen absent human carbon emissions, which
is worrisome because if they don't show that pattern happening at _some_
point in the not too distant future then the models may be missing
something important.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ndlsbp$na$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

In such discussions it is essential that the definition of "scientist"
be nailed down. Most of the surveys that purport to show that
"scientists" hold one belief or another are based on rather questionable
samples--"persons who subscribe to x publication and actually bothered
to respond to a survey" is typical.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.3168be66b...@news.eternal-september.org:

This is true, of course, of *both* sides. The qualification to be a
media pundit on the subject seems to be more a sincere desire for
attention than any actual knowledge of the subject. (Again, on
*both8 sides.)

[lal_truckee]

On 4/1/16 2:35 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
s

> If I had access to their tax returns, that would, perhaps, be a
> useful distinction.

I would tend to think paying taxes would be a sign of a failed economist
(or accountant or tax attorney) not a signature of success in the
fields. Perhaps you need to recast your hypothesis.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ndn1vg$hn7$1...@dont-email.me:

Since said tax returns are unavailable, my hypothesis remains
unchallenged: what they do for a living is not a meaningful test.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:12:20 PM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare"
> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

If you actually read the interview which they link to but don't so much summarize as completely ignore what the interviewee says and write bullshit about it.
The actual interview includes the quote
"Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

The ecological goal is to keep global warming below 2 degrees C

"De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

The goal is set, keep the temperature rise to 2 degrees celsius or below, the requirement to do this is to burn no more than 400 gigatons.
Now the factor which has to be solved is how it can be done, the discussions and negotiations at conferences have come to targets for individual countries and we're looking to support that.

In short learn to read without the paranoia tinged glasses.

>
> "If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they
> would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state."
>

That's a "editorial" comment from a website which flings around terms like 'climate alarmists'

> Nooooo! Say it isn't so!
>
> So, which one is speculative fiction? The global warming scare or the effort to create utopia?
>

Your favored sites with their paranoid conspiracy theories...

[Greg Goss]

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

>It's not just that. The paleo records suggest that we are due for a
>brief temperature spike followed by a rapid cooling right about now and
>if that happens then the rapid cooling won't stop until there are
>several kilometers of ice over New York.
>
>So, is "anthropogenic global warming" _preventing_ this? If so then
>abrupt cessation would seem to be a _very_ bad idea.

This is the background of Niven/Pournelle's "Fallen Angels". A
"Green" administration in the US (written before India/China took over
the lead in carbon production) leads to dramatic falls in greenhouse
gas production, and ice arrives in Manitoba.

An article in SciAm much of a decade back claimed we departed from the
"paleo records" several centuries back. He blames the initial
departure on methane from hillside rice production. The greenies
never seem to mention artificial swamps for rice production and the
resulting methane as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.

One disturbing thing of our models is that they don't produce the warm
period from 700 to 1100. The vikings found wine-quality grapes in
LABRADOR for heaven's sake.

I've been unable to find someone to ask whether the "medieval warm
period" was observed in Asia or places other than Ireland, Scandinavia
and northeastern North America. The Gulf Stream isn't very stable,
and a much-increased Gulf Stream can heat areas around the North
Atlantic without affecting the global average temperature.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>news:ypt0yqj0rhvh.c...@40tude.net:
>
>> Combine that with a very large ego, and you have a man who
>> is sure for instance, that when you point out that your
>> system of values doesn’t work according to his model, you
>> are mistaken or lying. And one who is sure that he can
>> understand anything better than the experts in the field if
>> he spends a bit of time swotting up on it
>>
>So he's *exactly* like Shawn.

Does Shawn ever "swot up on it"? How many times have you (or others)
picked apart a reference he googled and very quickly skimmed but not
deeply enough to notice it disprived his point?

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

>> can afford to live somewhere outside of his mom's basement.
>
>I wouldn't bet you the price of a cheap burger that Shawn isn't
>living in the basket on the front of his bicycle.

Shawn inherited money, moved somewhere very cheap to live, and appears
to be enough of an "economist" to live on the proceeds.

[Greg Goss]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>We hear that 1% of scientists (some claims go as high as 3%) are climate
>change sceptics. But are they scientists? I suspect that if you looked
>into it you would find a lot of mail order diplomas, theological college
>graduates, and so on.

I saw someone dig into a list of such skeptics once and he found three
TV weather reporters as "meteorologists".

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 2 April 2016 16:23:39 UTC+1, Greg Goss wrote:
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >We hear that 1% of scientists (some claims go as high as 3%) are climate
> >change sceptics. But are they scientists? I suspect that if you looked
> >into it you would find a lot of mail order diplomas, theological college
> >graduates, and so on.
>
> I saw someone dig into a list of such skeptics once and he found three
> TV weather reporters as "meteorologists".

Some are: or have been. BBC in particular used meteorology
scientists to prepare and then present daily forecasts.
And some, on the other hand, are just television read-out-ers.

And recently under threat from the British government
the BBC switched, or will switch, to weather forecasts
from the cheapest bidder.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34031785>

[Cryptoengineer]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:dma5hiFeln7U1
@mid.individual.net:

> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's not just that. The paleo records suggest that we are due for a
>>brief temperature spike followed by a rapid cooling right about now and
>>if that happens then the rapid cooling won't stop until there are
>>several kilometers of ice over New York.
>>
>>So, is "anthropogenic global warming" _preventing_ this? If so then
>>abrupt cessation would seem to be a _very_ bad idea.

I'm curious what the evidence is for a 'brief temperature spike' before
cooling is - I could imagine an argument for cooling, but the spike bit
sounds like something invented to maintain that position in the light
of observed warming.

I don't rule it out, but I'd like a pointer to the evidence.

[...]

> An article in SciAm much of a decade back claimed we departed from the
> "paleo records" several centuries back. He blames the initial
> departure on methane from hillside rice production. The greenies
> never seem to mention artificial swamps for rice production and the
> resulting methane as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.

Centuries ago? Try 5000 years. I'm certainly aware of the theory
(Ruddiman). I'm not heard that 'greenies' are trying to ignore it,
and wonder why you'd think they'd do so.

Go to the appropriate graphs, and look at atmospheric levels of
both C02 and methane. Both have spiked *way* above long-term historical
levels in last couple centuries, far more than any change in level
wrought by rice farming.

It's not really important if the climate in (say) 1700 was partially
anthropogenic already. What is relevent is that it now seems to be
changing, and for the worse. The swings in temperature, ocean acidity,
etc are very rapid on a historical scale, and are starting to cause
problems.

If we can do something to stop the changes, whatever their cause,
we should do so.

> One disturbing thing of our models is that they don't produce the warm
> period from 700 to 1100. The vikings found wine-quality grapes in
> LABRADOR for heaven's sake.
>
> I've been unable to find someone to ask whether the "medieval warm
> period" was observed in Asia or places other than Ireland, Scandinavia
> and northeastern North America. The Gulf Stream isn't very stable,
> and a much-increased Gulf Stream can heat areas around the North
> Atlantic without affecting the global average temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
links papers suggesting it occured in China as well.

Incidently, the lead graph on that page is an example of what I'm
talking about; While it does show the gradual rise and then the
fall into the 'LIttle Ice Age', it also shows the recent rise in
temperature, suddently spiking to levels not seen in over 2000 years.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:b7667b5c-8fe4-4ced...@googlegroups.com:

Back in the 70s, I remember watching on a british news show (can't
remember if it was BBC or ITV), where they played a typical
US weather broadcast, with it's charts, details, greenscreens, celebrity
weatherman, etc, and contrasted it with they're own
simple maps with sun and cloud stickers. They asked their weatherman
why the British couldn't have fancy broadcasts like that.

The guy was clearly jealous as hell, and trying to suppress his rage
at the question. I remember 'To start, I get 30 seconds - they have 3
minutes' was his opener.

pt

[Greg Goss]

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:dma5hiFeln7U1
>@mid.individual.net:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It's not just that. The paleo records suggest that we are due for a
>>>brief temperature spike followed by a rapid cooling right about now and
>>>if that happens then the rapid cooling won't stop until there are
>>>several kilometers of ice over New York.
>>>
>>>So, is "anthropogenic global warming" _preventing_ this? If so then
>>>abrupt cessation would seem to be a _very_ bad idea.
>
>I'm curious what the evidence is for a 'brief temperature spike' before
>cooling is - I could imagine an argument for cooling, but the spike bit
>sounds like something invented to maintain that position in the light
>of observed warming.
>
>I don't rule it out, but I'd like a pointer to the evidence.

Perhaps it's necessary to get the water from the oceans into the
atmosphere. There's a lot of water that needs to evaporate to put a
kilopeter of ice over New York.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I don't blame him one bit for being angry. That really was a shitty
thing to do to him.


--
Privacy IS Security

[Shawn Wilson]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:08:10 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:


> DF is an expert on Medieval cooking, a published SF/F author, and
> many more things, including (unlike Shawn) an economist.


David has no training in economics whatsoever. It occasionally bites him in the ass when he fails to grasp certain core concepts.

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA5DE79B09E...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

>
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:dma5hiFeln7U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It's not just that. The paleo records suggest that we are due for a
> >>brief temperature spike followed by a rapid cooling right about now and
> >>if that happens then the rapid cooling won't stop until there are
> >>several kilometers of ice over New York.
> >>
> >>So, is "anthropogenic global warming" _preventing_ this? If so then
> >>abrupt cessation would seem to be a _very_ bad idea.
>
> I'm curious what the evidence is for a 'brief temperature spike' before
> cooling is - I could imagine an argument for cooling, but the spike bit
> sounds like something invented to maintain that position in the light
> of observed warming.
>
> I don't rule it out, but I'd like a pointer to the evidence.

Take a look at the graphs of the Vostok Ice Core data from Antartica.

One fairly clear graph can be found at
<http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/research/past-research-prog/anzice>
but if you google "Vostok Ice Core" you'll find more.

Note that for each cycle, the temperature cools, then starts rising,
hits a peak, and then the cooling starts again. Note the timing--we're
either in the peak, or just past it, and if just past it with no cooling
then we're in unknown territory.

> [...]
> > An article in SciAm much of a decade back claimed we departed from the
> > "paleo records" several centuries back. He blames the initial
> > departure on methane from hillside rice production. The greenies
> > never seem to mention artificial swamps for rice production and the
> > resulting methane as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.
>
> Centuries ago? Try 5000 years. I'm certainly aware of the theory
> (Ruddiman). I'm not heard that 'greenies' are trying to ignore it,
> and wonder why you'd think they'd do so.
>
> Go to the appropriate graphs, and look at atmospheric levels of
> both C02 and methane. Both have spiked *way* above long-term historical
> levels

Be careful with that term "historical levels". "History" in academia
has a specific meaning and it is not "interesting stuff that happened a
long time ago"--it is restricted to events that occurred after the
invention of writing, which is why there is a different field,
"archaeology", that deals with events in the past independent of
writing. So "history" only goes back 5000 years or so, while a full
climate cycle appears to be about 100,000 years, and the warming trend
that we are currently experiencing appears to have started about 10,000
years ago.

> in last couple centuries, far more than any change in level
> wrought by rice farming.
>
> It's not really important if the climate in (say) 1700 was partially
> anthropogenic already. What is relevent is that it now seems to be
> changing, and for the worse. The swings in temperature, ocean acidity,
> etc are very rapid on a historical scale, and are starting to cause
> problems.

For certain values of "problems".

>
> If we can do something to stop the changes, whatever their cause,
> we should do so.

But what if there are worse changes that what we are doing is
preventing? We are due for another glaciation cycle to start--when that
happens all the problems with sea level rising will go away, it will
start falling instead, but the water is going to go on top of Western
civilization in the form of glaciers.

> > One disturbing thing of our models is that they don't produce the warm
> > period from 700 to 1100. The vikings found wine-quality grapes in
> > LABRADOR for heaven's sake.
> >
> > I've been unable to find someone to ask whether the "medieval warm
> > period" was observed in Asia or places other than Ireland, Scandinavia
> > and northeastern North America. The Gulf Stream isn't very stable,
> > and a much-increased Gulf Stream can heat areas around the North
> > Atlantic without affecting the global average temperature.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
> links papers suggesting it occured in China as well.
>
> Incidently, the lead graph on that page is an example of what I'm
> talking about; While it does show the gradual rise and then the
> fall into the 'LIttle Ice Age', it also shows the recent rise in
> temperature, suddently spiking to levels not seen in over 2000 years.

But 2000 years is a very short period in paleoclimatology.
>
> pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

news:dma61s...@mid.individual.net:

Pretty much every time, isn't it?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

news:dma65h...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>
>>> can afford to live somewhere outside of his mom's basement.
>>
>>I wouldn't bet you the price of a cheap burger that Shawn isn't
>>living in the basket on the front of his bicycle.
>
> Shawn inherited money, moved somewhere very cheap to live, and
> appears to be enough of an "economist" to live on the proceeds.
>

Do you have evidence of that that doesn't come from Shawn?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:810ec528-ec70-4e54...@googlegroups.com:

If there's anybody who knows about having no training in economics,
it's you. Of course, the same is true for every other subject known
to man, as well.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>news:dma65h...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>>
>>>> can afford to live somewhere outside of his mom's basement.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't bet you the price of a cheap burger that Shawn isn't
>>>living in the basket on the front of his bicycle.
>>
>> Shawn inherited money, moved somewhere very cheap to live, and
>> appears to be enough of an "economist" to live on the proceeds.
>>
>Do you have evidence of that that doesn't come from Shawn?

He posted a request to borrow money at high interest until probate
went through. I find it internally consistent.

[Cryptoengineer]

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

news:MPG.3169f6359...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <XnsA5DE79B09E...@216.166.97.131>,
> treif...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:dma5hiFeln7U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>> > "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>It's not just that. The paleo records suggest that we are due for
>> >>a brief temperature spike followed by a rapid cooling right about
>> >>now and if that happens then the rapid cooling won't stop until
>> >>there are several kilometers of ice over New York.
>> >>
>> >>So, is "anthropogenic global warming" _preventing_ this? If so
>> >>then abrupt cessation would seem to be a _very_ bad idea.
>>
>> I'm curious what the evidence is for a 'brief temperature spike'
>> before cooling is - I could imagine an argument for cooling, but the
>> spike bit sounds like something invented to maintain that position in
>> the light of observed warming.
>>
>> I don't rule it out, but I'd like a pointer to the evidence.
>
> Take a look at the graphs of the Vostok Ice Core data from Antartica.
>
> One fairly clear graph can be found at
> <http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/research/past-research-prog/anzice
> > but if you google "Vostok Ice Core" you'll find more.
>
> Note that for each cycle, the temperature cools, then starts rising,
> hits a peak, and then the cooling starts again. Note the
> timing--we're either in the peak, or just past it, and if just past it
> with no cooling then we're in unknown territory.

Thanks, that's interesting. However, I think you need to think about the
time scales involved - look at the bottom scale of the Vostok graph, and
consider how tiny a space the last 200 years occupies. I think you can
see the problem; the graph can't show changes on that tight a scale.

In fact, once you add in current values, this chart shows how
extraordinary the current period is:

CO2 at 380 ppm - the chart maxes out at about 310 over last 400,000
years

Methane at 1900 ppb: the chart maxes at 800 over the same period

Temperature up about 1 degree C over the last 100 years. That would
be a vertical line on this time scale, jumping out of and above an
already peak temperature, to or past the highest in 400k years.

The minimum takeaway from this chart and the current data is that
both CO2 and methane levels are now far higher than they've been
at any time in over 400,000 years, and temperature has spiked as
well, and in an extraordinarily short time.

The numbers I'm giving are from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle#Relevant_gases
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

>> [...]
>> > An article in SciAm much of a decade back claimed we departed from
>> > the "paleo records" several centuries back. He blames the initial
>> > departure on methane from hillside rice production. The greenies
>> > never seem to mention artificial swamps for rice production and the
>> > resulting methane as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.
>>
>> Centuries ago? Try 5000 years. I'm certainly aware of the theory
>> (Ruddiman). I'm not heard that 'greenies' are trying to ignore it,
>> and wonder why you'd think they'd do so.
>>
>> Go to the appropriate graphs, and look at atmospheric levels of
>> both C02 and methane. Both have spiked *way* above long-term
>> historical levels
>

[Irrelevent note on use of the word 'historical' deleted - again,
that the time base is actually far longer the 'historical'
strengthens the notion that we are in an extraordinary period.]

>
>> in last couple centuries, far more than any change in level
>> wrought by rice farming.
>>
>> It's not really important if the climate in (say) 1700 was partially
>> anthropogenic already. What is relevent is that it now seems to be
>> changing, and for the worse. The swings in temperature, ocean
>> acidity, etc are very rapid on a historical scale, and are starting
>> to cause problems.
>
> For certain values of "problems".
>>
>> If we can do something to stop the changes, whatever their cause,
>> we should do so.
>
> But what if there are worse changes that what we are doing is
> preventing? We are due for another glaciation cycle to start--when
> that happens all the problems with sea level rising will go away, it
> will start falling instead, but the water is going to go on top of
> Western civilization in the form of glaciers.

Thats an interesting point - I can remember that we were worrying about
the next Ice Age as recently as the 70s. If getting too cold starts to
be the problem, we've got lots of ways to deal with that too.

>> > One disturbing thing of our models is that they don't produce the
>> > warm period from 700 to 1100. The vikings found wine-quality
>> > grapes in LABRADOR for heaven's sake.
>> >
>> > I've been unable to find someone to ask whether the "medieval warm
>> > period" was observed in Asia or places other than Ireland,
>> > Scandinavia and northeastern North America. The Gulf Stream isn't
>> > very stable, and a much-increased Gulf Stream can heat areas around
>> > the North Atlantic without affecting the global average
>> > temperature.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
>> links papers suggesting it occured in China as well.
>>
>> Incidently, the lead graph on that page is an example of what I'm
>> talking about; While it does show the gradual rise and then the
>> fall into the 'LIttle Ice Age', it also shows the recent rise in
>> temperature, suddently spiking to levels not seen in over 2000 years.
>
> But 2000 years is a very short period in paleoclimatology.

The graph was about the MWP and the LIA. It only went back to 0 AD, so
I didn't cite beyond that. Your Vostok graph shows earlier history.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:dmatn2Fko9iU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>news:dma65h...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>>>
>>>>> can afford to live somewhere outside of his mom's basement.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't bet you the price of a cheap burger that Shawn isn't
>>>>living in the basket on the front of his bicycle.
>>>
>>> Shawn inherited money, moved somewhere very cheap to live, and
>>> appears to be enough of an "economist" to live on the proceeds.
>>>
>>Do you have evidence of that that doesn't come from Shawn?
>
> He posted a request to borrow money at high interest until probate
> went through.

So, no.

> I find it internally consistent.

Delusions often are. Especially insane ones.

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA5DEE090AD...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

However does that mean that we are actually seeing something unusual and
unexpected, or just that we're seeing a short term event that gets
averaged in the ice data?

> >> [...]
> >> > An article in SciAm much of a decade back claimed we departed from
> >> > the "paleo records" several centuries back. He blames the initial
> >> > departure on methane from hillside rice production. The greenies
> >> > never seem to mention artificial swamps for rice production and the
> >> > resulting methane as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.
> >>
> >> Centuries ago? Try 5000 years. I'm certainly aware of the theory
> >> (Ruddiman). I'm not heard that 'greenies' are trying to ignore it,
> >> and wonder why you'd think they'd do so.
> >>
> >> Go to the appropriate graphs, and look at atmospheric levels of
> >> both C02 and methane. Both have spiked *way* above long-term
> >> historical levels
> >
> [Irrelevent note on use of the word 'historical' deleted - again,
> that the time base is actually far longer the 'historical'
> strengthens the notion that we are in an extraordinary period.]

No, it strengthens the notion that we are trying to predict the stock
market 20 years in the future using the data from the last ten seconds
of trading.

> >> in last couple centuries, far more than any change in level
> >> wrought by rice farming.
> >>
> >> It's not really important if the climate in (say) 1700 was partially
> >> anthropogenic already. What is relevent is that it now seems to be
> >> changing, and for the worse. The swings in temperature, ocean
> >> acidity, etc are very rapid on a historical scale, and are starting
> >> to cause problems.
> >
> > For certain values of "problems".
> >>
> >> If we can do something to stop the changes, whatever their cause,
> >> we should do so.
> >
> > But what if there are worse changes that what we are doing is
> > preventing? We are due for another glaciation cycle to start--when
> > that happens all the problems with sea level rising will go away, it
> > will start falling instead, but the water is going to go on top of
> > Western civilization in the form of glaciers.
>
> Thats an interesting point - I can remember that we were worrying about
> the next Ice Age as recently as the 70s. If getting too cold starts to
> be the problem, we've got lots of ways to deal with that too.

Do we? Belief in anthropogenic global warming may be leading you down
the primrose path into the belief that we can actually control climate.
Maybe we can but that's not the way to bet.

> >> > One disturbing thing of our models is that they don't produce the
> >> > warm period from 700 to 1100. The vikings found wine-quality
> >> > grapes in LABRADOR for heaven's sake.
> >> >
> >> > I've been unable to find someone to ask whether the "medieval warm
> >> > period" was observed in Asia or places other than Ireland,
> >> > Scandinavia and northeastern North America. The Gulf Stream isn't
> >> > very stable, and a much-increased Gulf Stream can heat areas around
> >> > the North Atlantic without affecting the global average
> >> > temperature.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
> >> links papers suggesting it occured in China as well.
> >>
> >> Incidently, the lead graph on that page is an example of what I'm
> >> talking about; While it does show the gradual rise and then the
> >> fall into the 'LIttle Ice Age', it also shows the recent rise in
> >> temperature, suddently spiking to levels not seen in over 2000 years.
> >
> > But 2000 years is a very short period in paleoclimatology.
>
> The graph was about the MWP and the LIA. It only went back to 0 AD, so
> I didn't cite beyond that. Your Vostok graph shows earlier history.

And you're missing the point. There's a _cycle_. Temperature rises,
then Something Happens, then temperature falls, then Something Else
Happens, then temperature rises. We don't know with any certainty what
Something or Something Else are and cannot say with certainty that
anything that we are doing will cause or prevent either.

And the climate models that are in use do not seem to predict either
event under _any_ circumstance which makes the models highly
questionable.

You can't just look at a thousandth of a wave form in ignorance of the
mechanism generataing the wave and claim "I know what's going to happen
next".


>
> pt

[Greg Goss]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>treif...@gmail.com says...

>> Thats an interesting point - I can remember that we were worrying about
>> the next Ice Age as recently as the 70s. If getting too cold starts to
>> be the problem, we've got lots of ways to deal with that too.
>
>Do we? Belief in anthropogenic global warming may be leading you down
>the primrose path into the belief that we can actually control climate.
>Maybe we can but that's not the way to bet.

There's also the idea of injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere
to cool global warming. The side effects of this idea are not well
understood.

In the radio version of Dyer's "Climate Wars", Vietnam and another
tropical country started injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere
and were stopped by nuclear threat. I don't know how closely his book
version matches the radio version which was 1/3 storyline and 2/3
documentary.

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:09:15 UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >treif...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> Thats an interesting point - I can remember that we were worrying about
> >> the next Ice Age as recently as the 70s.

Newsweek was, anyway.

If getting too cold starts to
> >> be the problem, we've got lots of ways to deal with that too.
> >
> >Do we? Belief in anthropogenic global warming may be leading you down
> >the primrose path into the belief that we can actually control climate.
> >Maybe we can but that's not the way to bet.
>
> There's also the idea of injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere
> to cool global warming. The side effects of this idea are not well
> understood.

Sure they are. As Dwyer noted, nuclear war.

Any solar dimming accomplished by making the stratosphere more reflective will seriously weaken the Indian Monsoon (by reducing land-sea temperature contrast), and also reduce rainfall in China. Neither power is likely to take this sitting down.

I'm really too ill for a long comment, but as the co-author of a Nature paper abused (as expected) by denialists to advance their case, let me just say that all the remarks in this thread about the current CO2 increase saving us from future ice growth ignore the time scales involved.

>
> In the radio version of Dyer's "Climate Wars", Vietnam and another
> tropical country started injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere
> and were stopped by nuclear threat.

Were it Vietnam, I suspect China would simply invade. Why waste nukes?

William Hyde

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-02, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>>> can afford to live somewhere outside of his mom's basement.
>>
>>I wouldn't bet you the price of a cheap burger that Shawn isn't
>>living in the basket on the front of his bicycle.
>
> Shawn inherited money, moved somewhere very cheap to live, and appears
> to be enough of an "economist" to live on the proceeds.

No no, that was ME. (And not exactly in that order.) Gotta follow the
references headers!

Dave, inheritance gone, squandered THOUGHTLESSLY on food and books. o agony!
--
\/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.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-02, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Perhaps it's necessary to get the water from the oceans into the
> atmosphere. There's a lot of water that needs to evaporate to put a
> kilopeter of ice over New York.

... wait, we're using Catholic measurements now?

Dave, upon this glacier I shall build my Winter Church, and it shall GLITTER

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:51:23 -0500, David DeLaney
<davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote
in<news:GOmdnZx-NOk2S5zK...@earthlink.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 2016-04-02, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>> Perhaps it's necessary to get the water from the oceans
>> into the atmosphere. There's a lot of water that needs
>> to evaporate to put a kilopeter of ice over New York.

> ... wait, we're using Catholic measurements now?

Yea, verily, and a thousand cocks crew.

[...]

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.

[Robert Bannister]

On 2/04/2016 3:40 pm, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:12:20 PM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire
> wrote:
>> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare"
>> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
>
>>
> If you actually read the interview which they link to but don't so
> much summarize as completely ignore what the interviewee says and
> write bullshit about it. The actual interview includes the quote
> "Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately
> from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun
> at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the
> largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because
> we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil
> under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere
> if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no
> getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain
> in the soil."

I don't know about your country, but in many countries the legislators
have large share holdings in coal mining companies.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
news:dme6mu...@mid.individual.net:

And in any modern industrial country, if you cut energy availability
by over 95%, people die. Lots of people. Climate change pundits
ignoring this is why so many people ignore climate change pundits.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Lucky that's not what's being advocated then isn't it?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

hamis...@gmail.com wrote in
news:0ecc8aba-eda7-4db6...@googlegroups.com:

11,000 --> 400 is, in fact, over 95%. So, yes, it is what is being
advocated. You pretending otherwise is what I'm talking about.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

No. It's advocating that *over time* you reduce demand until you don't
pull out more than a TOTAL of 400. You can do that many ways, including
building nuclear plants to replace the coal you're phasing out. But we
don't release 400GT per year, or even close to it, so it's not just
saying "cut your energy availability by 95%". It's saying "you need to
start making energy available that doesn't release carbon so that you
won't ever HAVE to cut energy availability."



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

[Lynn McGuire]

On 4/2/2016 2:40 AM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:12:20 PM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare"
>> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
>
> If you actually read the interview which they link to but don't so much summarize as completely ignore what the interviewee says and write bullshit about it.
> The actual interview includes the quote
> "Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."
>

> The ecological goal is to keep global warming below 2 degrees C
>
> "De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
>
> First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
>
> The goal is set, keep the temperature rise to 2 degrees celsius or below, the requirement to do this is to burn no more than 400 gigatons.
> Now the factor which has to be solved is how it can be done, the discussions and negotiations at conferences have come to targets for individual countries and we're looking to support that.
>
> In short learn to read without the paranoia tinged glasses.
>>
>> "If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they
>> would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state."
>>
>
> That's a "editorial" comment from a website which flings around terms like 'climate alarmists'
>
>> Nooooo! Say it isn't so!
>>
>> So, which one is speculative fiction? The global warming scare or the effort to create utopia?
>>
>
> Your favored sites with their paranoid conspiracy theories...

It would be interesting to know how much of that 11,000 gigatons of CO2 is agricultural related. I would think at least 10%. Maybe
even 25%.

I even wonder where the number of 11,000 gigatons of CO2 comes from?

Lynn

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:06:13 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:ypt0yqj0rhvh.c...@40tude.net:

> > Combine that with a very large ego, and you have a man who
> > is sure for instance, that when you point out that your
> > system of values doesn't work according to his model, you
> > are mistaken or lying. And one who is sure that he can
> > understand anything better than the experts in the field if
> > he spends a bit of time swotting up on it

> So he's *exactly* like Shawn.

Not quite, but it shows that you can be a real economist, and yet not be all
that different from Shawn.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:37:35 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Some are: or have been. BBC in particular used meteorology
> scientists to prepare and then present daily forecasts.
> And some, on the other hand, are just television read-out-ers.

Of course, some television read-out-ers can have value to society.

For example, that was what Raquel Welch was doing before _Fantastic Voyage_.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> If we can do something to stop the changes, whatever their cause,
> we should do so.

Well, if their cause weren't our own carbon dioxide emissions, then what we
would have to do to stop them is engage in geoengineering. Which we could get
horribly wrong.

The main cause of climate change denial, though, is that it _appears_ that what
we have to do to stop global warming is to drastically curtail our energy
consumption, and go back to a simpler time. This involves economic sacrifices
that people aren't going to do on someone else's word; the evidence of a crisis
would have to be unmistakable, not based on very technical studies. And, of
course, by the time it's that obvious we have a problem, it will be too late to
prevent a disaster.

Thus, the _first_ step to preventing global warming from leading to its first
disastrous consequence - famine in tropical areas - people seeking to stop it
need to advocate *acceptable* alternatives.

But what kind of magical science-fiction technology could possibly provide us
with energy without burning fossil fuels?

I admit that energy for some uses - driving to the country on the weekends,
operating farm machinery - is difficult, at this time, to provide without using
fossil fuels, although work has been done on it with promising results.

But we don't need to burn fossil fuels for electrical power. Where
hydroelectricity is not convenient, we can use nuclear power plants.

The electric car is improving. But the *trolley bus* has already been invented,
and has proven itself in use for decades. In fact, I think somewhat more than a
hundred years. So that takes care of the big chunk of automobile use involved
in commuting to work.

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

news:nduc1l$bu6$1...@dont-email.me:

As opposed to, over time, we release a TOTAL of 11,000 tons.

> You can do that many ways,
> including building nuclear plants

I lost my scorecard. Is nuclear power Satan or Jesus this week?
Fukushima (never mind Chernobyl) demonstrated that there are
serious environmental issued with nuclear, too. Which nether side
has any plan to deal with, either.

Solar involved industrial processes that are, to say the least,
also troublesome, and storing solar power involves batteries that
cannot go into landfills when they die. Wind power has
environmental issues, too. And _all_ power use ends up a waste heat
eventually. There's *no* option that some wingnut won't cry the end
of the world over, and while they're wingnuts having the vapors,
there is an underlying issue with *any* form of power generation
_that the anti-hydrocarbon whackos refuse to talk about_.

Where would you propose storing nuclear waste for the next 50,000
years? Keep in mind, the people who live next door get to vote,
too.

>to replace the coal you're
> phasing out. But we don't release 400GT per year, or even close
> to it, so it's not just saying "cut your energy availability by
> 95%".

In fact, in TOTAL, a bit over 95% is exactly what's be proposed.

> It's saying "you need to start making energy available
> that doesn't release carbon so that you won't ever HAVE to cut
> energy availability."
>

And it's _not_ saying "and you need to do so in a way that is
economically viable."

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:c07a4e69-a634-42d7...@googlegroups.com:

That's my point. Aside from my father's conention that a PhD (any
PhD) may well mean you're a well educated idtiot, if we cannot tell
teh difference between a noted, published econmist, and a retard who
can't prove he graduated from *grade* school, maybe there isn't one.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:bdf5b445-ab13-4c44...@googlegroups.com:

Assuming that men and women are equally likely to be gay, that's of
value to only _half_ of society (and really, even then, only the
percentage that can afford lots of Kleenex(tm).)

[J. Clarke]

In article <00939bdc-52e1-4ed1...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

So how are you going to pay for all these "trolley buses" some of which
will have three people aboard at peak ridership? That is if they are
going to be used to induce people to give up their cars. And why would
anybody want to sit on a bus for an hour for a fifteen minute drive?

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:53:02 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:

> So how are you going to pay for all these "trolley buses" some of which
> will have three people aboard at peak ridership? That is if they are
> going to be used to induce people to give up their cars. And why would
> anybody want to sit on a bus for an hour for a fifteen minute drive?

Yeah, fuck that. Burn it up, I say!

[J. Clarke]

In article <33050783-67c0-4650...@googlegroups.com>,
patmp...@gmail.com says...

It's going to get burned up no matter what we do, the only question is
when.

However you are making the false argument that "burning it up" is the
only way that private vehicles can exist. Our CEO has an electric car.
So does the VP in charge of my department. Are they "burning it up" any
more than that huge empty trolley bus?

[Cryptoengineer]

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

news:MPG.316cc9886...@news.eternal-september.org:

Depends where their electricity comes from. Some is generated burning
fossil fuels, but a good chunk is from other sources. There are online
calculators to calculate how much carbon you save by using electric
vehicles.

pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA5E0E3680A...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

So? If the electric companies are "burning it up", your beef is with
them, not electric-car commuters.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

>> You can do that many ways,
>> including building nuclear plants
>
>I lost my scorecard. Is nuclear power Satan or Jesus this week?

Depends on which greenies you ask. You can't maintain a "western"
lifestyle without concentrated energy sources. Fission is the biggest
of these.

>Fukushima (never mind Chernobyl) demonstrated that there are
>serious environmental issued with nuclear, too. Which nether side
>has any plan to deal with, either.

Concentrated energy has the potential for problems. Coal has led to
advice that you only eat tuna once a week because of the risk of
poisoning your brain. Fuku(p)shima was badly designed and led to
significant problems, but not that major on a global scale. Chernobyl
was actually LESS of a problem because it was in a less urbanized
region. TMI, of course, was a total non-issue.

>Solar involved industrial processes that are, to say the least,
>also troublesome, and storing solar power involves batteries that
>cannot go into landfills when they die. Wind power has
>environmental issues, too. And _all_ power use ends up a waste heat
>eventually.

Where I live, using a neighboring region's hydro as infill for my
region's wind power (And as infill for California's solar) makes a lot
of sense. So we need bigger wires between BC and Alberta.
Unfortunately a lot of my co-greenies would object to those wires.

>Where would you propose storing nuclear waste for the next 50,000
>years? Keep in mind, the people who live next door get to vote,
>too.

Remember that the ore was radioactive when it was dug out of the
ground. After 600 years the waste is about as radioactive as the ore
it started out as.

[Robert Bannister]

On 5/04/2016 5:16 am, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>> If we can do something to stop the changes, whatever their cause,
>> we should do so.
>
> Well, if their cause weren't our own carbon dioxide emissions, then what we
> would have to do to stop them is engage in geoengineering. Which we could get
> horribly wrong.
>
> The main cause of climate change denial, though, is that it _appears_ that what
> we have to do to stop global warming is to drastically curtail our energy
> consumption, and go back to a simpler time. This involves economic sacrifices
> that people aren't going to do on someone else's word; the evidence of a crisis
> would have to be unmistakable, not based on very technical studies. And, of
> course, by the time it's that obvious we have a problem, it will be too late to
> prevent a disaster.

It's not necessary to go that far. Just stopping the use of coal would
make an enormous difference, but too many politicians own shares in coal
related industries. I'm not sure whether getting rid of all cattle could
have a similar effect.

[Robert Bannister]

I notice that now the batteries for solar generated power are getting
cheaper (relatively) a lot of people are installing them and cutting
themselves off the grid. Industry would probably need to continue to
rely on oil for a long time, but there are options. If they can't clean
coal up, then they'll have to give it up sooner or later.

[Robert Bannister]

That is, I confess, an admitted problem, but I saw a guy on TV the other
day who claims to have built a factory that is going to convert the
batteries into something reusable - I think reusable as something else.
Geo-thermal electricity looks more promising, but I don't think you can
do it everywhere - not sure, because apparently you only need a fairly
small temperature difference, whereas I had assumed we were talking
about molten magma.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:dmgo30...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>
>>> You can do that many ways,
>>> including building nuclear plants
>>
>>I lost my scorecard. Is nuclear power Satan or Jesus this week?
>
> Depends on which greenies you ask.

Exactly.

> You can't maintain a
> "western" lifestyle without concentrated energy sources.
> Fission is the biggest of these.

And has the potential to be just as bad for the environment as
coal.

>
>>Fukushima (never mind Chernobyl) demonstrated that there are
>>serious environmental issued with nuclear, too. Which nether
>>side has any plan to deal with, either.
>
> Concentrated energy has the potential for problems.

And therein lies the problem. The smarter of the environmental
whack jobs know that full well, and their intent is to kill of
nearly all (or all) of humanity so that it isn't needed. Some of
the smartest ones know better than to say that out loud.

> Coal has
> led to advice that you only eat tuna once a week because of the
> risk of poisoning your brain. Fuku(p)shima was badly designed
> and led to significant problems, but not that major on a global
> scale. Chernobyl was actually LESS of a problem because it was
> in a less urbanized region. TMI, of course, was a total
> non-issue.

There are _still_ five million people living in contaminated areas
around Chernobyl. Over a hundred thousand were evacuated right
away, and twice that over the next few years. Three quarters of a
*million* people took two years to put out the fire. 63,000 square
miles were contaminated.

And you're right: It *was* small scale - for a nuclear meltdown.

And you still haven't explained how to deal with the waste for
50,000 years.

>
>>Solar involved industrial processes that are, to say the least,
>>also troublesome, and storing solar power involves batteries
>>that cannot go into landfills when they die. Wind power has
>>environmental issues, too. And _all_ power use ends up a waste
>>heat eventually.
>
> Where I live, using a neighboring region's hydro as infill for
> my region's wind power (And as infill for California's solar)
> makes a lot of sense.

And for the other 99.99% of humanity? Or would you rather they just
quietly die in the dark?

> So we need bigger wires between BC and
> Alberta. Unfortunately a lot of my co-greenies would object to
> those wires.

Precisely the point. There is _no_ solution they will not decry,
other than the extinction of humanity - but everybody else has to
go first.

>
>>Where would you propose storing nuclear waste for the next
>>50,000 years? Keep in mind, the people who live next door get to
>>vote, too.
>
> Remember that the ore was radioactive when it was dug out of the
> ground. After 600 years the waste is about as radioactive as
> the ore it started out as.
>

That is not true. What was dug out of the ground was Uranium,
mostly U238, which is about as radioactive as you or me. That was
enriched, to concentrate the U235 to a high enough concentration to
be fissile (which is it *not* in nature, with the exception of one
deposit in Africa). That means a chain reaction, controllable, but
chain reaction nonetheless. And that means that what you end up
with is not what you started with, and some of it is a *lot* more
radioactive. Hell, spent fuel rods are so hot - temperature wise -
that they have to kept underwater for at least five years before
you can even contemplate what to do with the high level stuff.

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission[1], "High-level
wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses
during short periods of direct exposure. For example, 10 years
after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical
spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour – far greater than the
fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at
once."

The actual time it takes for waste to get back to the eqivalent of
the ore it was mined as is between 1,000 and 10,000 years,
depending on how enriched it was. Do you have a plan for storing it
for 10,000 years? Does anybody? And while we're on the subject,
what's the plan for 600 years?

Not to mention the chemical dangers of heavy metal toxins if they
should happen to get into ground water.

Now go take a look at the government's hanlding of such things so
far. Start with Hanford, with 53 million gallons of _high level_
radtioactive waste, 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive
waste, and 200 square miles of contaminated ground water. The
cleanup has been going on since 1988 - that's nearly 30 years - and
most of that effort has involved pumping the liquid waste from
leaking single walled tanks to double walled tanks - that also
leak, because they were built by the lowest bidder. There really
isn't a plausible estimated cost for an actual cleanup (and nowhere
to store the stuff more long term anyway), but the best estimates
are in the hundreds of billions - for what's known to be needed.


[1]http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-
sheets/radwaste.html

http://tinyurl.com/hlpder8

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in

news:dmgqkj...@mid.individual.net:

And until you have a proven solution, nobody is going to take you
seriously about reducing power generation to the point where people
die.

> but I saw a guy on TV
> the other day who claims to have built a factory that is going
> to convert the batteries into something reusable

I saw a guy on TV the other say who claimed he can cure my diabetes
with snake oil. What's your point? You are aware, aren't you, that
virtually everything on TV - including the news - is fiction?
Aren't you?

> - I think
> reusable as something else. Geo-thermal electricity looks more
> promising, but I don't think you can do it everywhere - not
> sure, because apparently you only need a fairly small
> temperature difference, whereas I had assumed we were talking
> about molten magma.
>

Well, when you work that out for 7 billion people (except it'll
probably be 8 by then), let us know. In the meantime, bringing
power generation levels down to the (claimed) needed levels will
kill people. You're assuming you won't be one of them. People who
want to destroy the coal and oil industries *always* assume they
won't be among the dead. Does Al Gore still pay $30,000/month for
electrcity for his mansion?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in

news:dmgqb9...@mid.individual.net:

For values of "a lot" that amount to less than 1%, or values of
"cutting themselves off the grid" that do not, in fact, actually
involve disconnecting from the grid.

I'll be more interested in the experiences of those people about a
year or two after the batteries are worn out, and they find out
replacing them is going to cost as much as they did new.

> Industry would probably
> need to continue to rely on oil for a long time, but there are
> options.

Name them. That can replace hydrocarbon power generation on a
society-wide scale, that exists today. Until you, or somebody, can,
you won't get taken seriously by much of anybody, but especially
people who are likely to be among the casualties.

> If they can't clean coal up, then they'll have to give
> it up sooner or later.
>

And if they do that with no viable replacement technology in place,
people will die.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:56:57 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> Where would you propose storing nuclear waste for the next 50,000
> years? Keep in mind, the people who live next door get to vote,
> too.

Unless they're penguins.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 5:53:02 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> And why would
> anybody want to sit on a bus for an hour for a fifteen minute drive?

Because they don't have enough gasoline ration coupons to do otherwise?

I mean, if global warming is a real problem, we would have to make _some_
sacrifices. Going back to the horse and buggy age, however, would not have to
be one of them.

Given the existence of such things as "traffic jams", however, I suspect that
in many cases it would be more like a 15-minute bus ride replacing a one-hour
drive.

That is not true when one individual switches to taking the bus while everyone
else still uses a car to get to work, but when the roads are emptied of private
cars during rush hours because of gasoline rationing similar to that employed
during World War II, it often would be.

This is the sort of thing that makes me despair of those who think we can solve
all our problems with Libertarianism.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:46:04 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> Name them. That can replace hydrocarbon power generation on a
> society-wide scale, that exists today. Until you, or somebody, can,
> you won't get taken seriously by much of anybody, but especially
> people who are likely to be among the casualties.

Fission power can do that. And there are indeed a few reasonable sites for
disposing of radioactive waste. It is merely some political and institutional
obstacles that need to be removed.

Protecting state's rights is not on the level of... protecting pregnant women
and children, to reference a Heinlein quote recently made in this group.

I find Western civilization useful, therefore I intend for it to survive.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 4 April 2016 23:00:21 UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:bdf5b445-ab13-4c44...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:37:35 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Some are: or have been. BBC in particular used meteorology
> >> scientists to prepare and then present daily forecasts.
> >> And some, on the other hand, are just television read-out-ers.
> >
> > Of course, some television read-out-ers can have value to
> > society.
> >
> > For example, that was what Raquel Welch was doing before
> > _Fantastic Voyage_.
> >
> Assuming that men and women are equally likely to be gay, that's of
> value to only _half_ of society (and really, even then, only the
> percentage that can afford lots of Kleenex(tm).)

Something has gone wrong with this argument.

We seem to have arrived at the premise of a television
presenter whose role is to read whether someone is gay,
and out them.

What I had in mind is that sometimes the weather presenter
is a meteorological scientist, and sometimes they are not.

[Mark Bestley]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>
> >> You can do that many ways,
> >> including building nuclear plants
> >
> >I lost my scorecard. Is nuclear power Satan or Jesus this week?
>
> Depends on which greenies you ask. You can't maintain a "western"
> lifestyle without concentrated energy sources. Fission is the biggest
> of these.
>
> >Fukushima (never mind Chernobyl) demonstrated that there are
> >serious environmental issued with nuclear, too. Which nether side
> >has any plan to deal with, either.
>
> Concentrated energy has the potential for problems. Coal has led to
> advice that you only eat tuna once a week because of the risk of
> poisoning your brain. Fuku(p)shima was badly designed and led to
> significant problems, but not that major on a global scale. Chernobyl
> was actually LESS of a problem because it was in a less urbanized
> region. TMI, of course, was a total non-issue.
>

What issues did Fukushima actually cause.
<https://www.rcr.ac.uk/posts/fukushima-–-five-years-are-risks-human-health-radiation-exposure-being-overstated>
says

" However, radiation from the Fukushima accident has not been
proven to have led to a single death, nor is it likely to

"


> >Solar involved industrial processes that are, to say the least,
> >also troublesome, and storing solar power involves batteries that
> >cannot go into landfills when they die. Wind power has
> >environmental issues, too. And _all_ power use ends up a waste heat
> >eventually.
>
> Where I live, using a neighboring region's hydro as infill for my
> region's wind power (And as infill for California's solar) makes a lot
> of sense. So we need bigger wires between BC and Alberta.
> Unfortunately a lot of my co-greenies would object to those wires.
>
> >Where would you propose storing nuclear waste for the next 50,000
> >years? Keep in mind, the people who live next door get to vote,
> >too.
>
> Remember that the ore was radioactive when it was dug out of the
> ground. After 600 years the waste is about as radioactive as the ore
> it started out as.


--

Mark

[J. Clarke]

In article <24298691-bec8-485d...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 5:53:02 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> > And why would
> > anybody want to sit on a bus for an hour for a fifteen minute drive?
>
> Because they don't have enough gasoline ration coupons to do otherwise?

What is this "gasoline" of which you speak? You're making assumptions
about the future of automotive technology.

> I mean, if global warming is a real problem, we would have to make _some_
> sacrifices. Going back to the horse and buggy age, however, would not have to
> be one of them.

Actually it could. Unless of course you want to freeze the living
standard of all those "brown people" you so desperately seem to want to
"save" at its current level.

If we are running on carbon-based fossil fuels it means the whole world
operates on about the same amount of energy that the US was using in
around 1910. And if we are not running on carbon-based fossil fuels
then what difference does it make how much energy we use?

> Given the existence of such things as "traffic jams", however, I suspect that
> in many cases it would be more like a 15-minute bus ride replacing a one-hour
> drive.

The uber got me from the hospital to my car Friday afternoon in ten
minutes. The best bus connection was 40 minutes. That's for a distance
that I could walk in an hour and fifteen minutes in the most developed
area of a major East Coast city.

The thing you don't get is that the bus has to stop at every street
corner, my car doesn't.

> That is not true when one individual switches to taking the bus while everyone
> else still uses a car to get to work, but when the roads are emptied of private
> cars during rush hours because of gasoline rationing similar to that employed
> during World War II, it often would be.

Again what is this "gas" of which you speak?

> This is the sort of thing that makes me despair of those who think we can solve
> all our problems with Libertarianism.

And this stupid puritanism is why I am fed up with liberalism. And
that's what it is--you don't want people to drive cars, you want them to
use public transportation, and when they steadfastly refuse to change
their evil ways you want the goveernment to force them to.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dmgq1o...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

Why would getting rid of cattle have any effect at all? You don't seem
to understand the difference between live and fossil emissions. What
comes out of a cow was removed from the environment by biological
processes within the last year or so.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dmgqb9...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

So are you going to go conquer China, which is on track to be producing
more emissions than the rest of the world put together, from their coal-
fired power plants, after the plan to make the US pay for cleaning them
up failed?

Yeah, the Chinese say they're cleaning up. Do you have reliable
statistics from sources that are not the Chinese government on how well
they are doing at it?

Coal right now is relatively cheap energy. But when you look at the
numbers, oil and gas aren't all that much cleaner.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/4/16 4:39 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> It would be interesting to know how much of that 11,000 gigatons of CO2

Carbon, actually. In the form of coal. Which will become CO2 when
burned. That was a calculation based on the known reserves of coal.


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

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/4/16 5:16 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>> If we can do something to stop the changes, whatever their cause,
>> we should do so.
>
> Well, if their cause weren't our own carbon dioxide emissions, then what we
> would have to do to stop them is engage in geoengineering. Which we could get
> horribly wrong.
>
> The main cause of climate change denial, though, is that it _appears_ that what
> we have to do to stop global warming is to drastically curtail our energy
> consumption,

No. Just change our energy SOURCE from "burn leftover fossil stuff" to
"something that doesn't generate more CO2". Very different things.

[Robert Carnegie]

Cows breathe out methane (CH4). This is extra strong
greenhouse gas that floats away up into the sky.

Also, cows are fed on lots of vegetable product.
The same land could produce vegetable product to
feed humans instead. Feeding humans by first
feeding cows, then feeding the cows to the humans,
is much less efficient.

Also, this process runs on fossil fuel. Including
turning fossil fuel into fertiliser. Basically,
cows are fed on oil - or rather, the vegetables
that make cow feed are fed on oil.

I do hear that in some places cows eat grass,
presumably because they are bored. For nutrition
farmers prefer to use "Beefo". (Nutrition for the
cows, I mean.)

They also tried feeding cows to cows. You may
remember the consequences (zombie cow apocalypse).

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/4/16 5:56 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

> news:nduc1l$bu6$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 4/4/16 1:29 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> hamis...@gmail.com wrote in
>>> news:0ecc8aba-eda7-4db6...@googlegroups.com:
>>>

>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 2:48:30 PM UTC+10, Gutless

>>>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:dme6mu...@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/04/2016 3:40 pm, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:12:20 PM UTC+11, Lynn
>>>>>>> McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind
>>>>>>>> Warming Scare"
>>>>>>>> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climat

>>>>>>>> e -al armist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you actually read the interview which they link to but
>>>>>>> don't so much summarize as completely ignore what the
>>>>>>> interviewee says and write bullshit about it. The actual
>>>>>>> interview includes the quote "Basically it's a big mistake
>>>>>>> to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes
>>>>>>> of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end
>>>>>>> of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the
>>>>>>> largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
>>>>>>> Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal
>>>>>>> reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only
>>>>>>> 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the
>>>>>>> 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around
>>>>>>> the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in
>>>>>>> the soil."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know about your country, but in many countries the
>>>>>> legislators have large share holdings in coal mining
>>>>>> companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in any modern industrial country, if you cut energy
>>>>> availability by over 95%, people die. Lots of people. Climate
>>>>> change pundits ignoring this is why so many people ignore
>>>>> climate change pundits.
>>>>

>>>> Lucky that's not what's being advocated then isn't it?
>>>>
>>> 11,000 --> 400 is, in fact, over 95%. So, yes, it is what is
>>> being advocated. You pretending otherwise is what I'm talking
>>> about.
>>>
>>
>> No. It's advocating that *over time* you reduce demand
>> until you don't
>> pull out more than a TOTAL of 400.
>
> As opposed to, over time, we release a TOTAL of 11,000 tons.
>

>> You can do that many ways,
>> including building nuclear plants
>
> I lost my scorecard. Is nuclear power Satan or Jesus this week?

> Fukushima (never mind Chernobyl) demonstrated that there are
> serious environmental issued with nuclear, too.

You misspelled "trivial". Compared to coal, which is the major culprit
here, Fukushima was nothing (no deaths from the accident at all, at
least from radiation or otherwise nuclear-related; a couple from people
being injured in mundane ways). Hell, Chernobyl wasn't even all that bad
compared to what we get from constantly-running coal plants.

I'd recommend going to thorium, anyway. A properly designed thorium
reactor can burn most of its own waste, ending up with vastly less waste
and more power generated.

> Where would you propose storing nuclear waste for the next 50,000
> years? Keep in mind, the people who live next door get to vote,
> too.

Why would one store it for 50,000 years? Wastes from coal *do not
decay*, yet we don't require that coal -- or any other industry -- seal
its waste away for five times longer than the historic record. It's a
paranoia thing. Sure, it's really hard to store nuclear waste for tens
of thousands of years. It'd also be really hard to store pretty much
ANYTHING for that long, and there's no real good reason to do it.

>
>> to replace the coal you're
>> phasing out. But we don't release 400GT per year, or even close
>> to it, so it's not just saying "cut your energy availability by
>> 95%".
>
> In fact, in TOTAL, a bit over 95% is exactly what's be proposed.
>
>> It's saying "you need to start making energy available
>> that doesn't release carbon so that you won't ever HAVE to cut
>> energy availability."
>>
> And it's _not_ saying "and you need to do so in a way that is
> economically viable."
>


Well, you should do that if you want to keep your current energy usage.
Either way people are gonna die in droves, if you can't come up with a
substitute.

Yes, generating power makes waste heat, but compared to how much extra
heat you can retain from the sun with even a small amount of CO2? We've
got a ways to go before that really becomes an issue.

SPS, if someone ever gets that working, would be cool, but thorium
reactors seem the most likely shorter-term thing. Even uranium reactors
are better than coal. The total amount of waste produced by a reactor
over its entire LIFETIME is smaller by a few orders of magnitude than
that produced by one coal plant over the period of a year. And taken in
total, the reactor's waste is less dangerous. Yeah, you wouldn't want to
stand too near it, but you wouldn't want to hang around one of the waste
pools for a coal plant, either.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-04, Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> On 2016-04-02, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>> Perhaps it's necessary to get the water from the oceans
>>> into the atmosphere. There's a lot of water that needs
>>> to evaporate to put a kilopeter of ice over New York.
>
>> ... wait, we're using Catholic measurements now?
>
> Yea, verily, and a thousand cocks crew.

SUBSCIRBE

Dave, i don't CARE if it doesn't want to get added to cart
--
\/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.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-04, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I lost my scorecard. Is nuclear power Satan or Jesus this week?

Fairly sure it's currently Buddha.

Mu.

> Where would you propose storing nuclear waste for the next 50,000
> years?

Detroit. Duh.

> In fact, in TOTAL, a bit over 95% is exactly what's be proposed.

Yep. But over the ENTIRE lifetime of all the available coal. not "this year".

>> It's saying "you need to start making energy available
>> that doesn't release carbon so that you won't ever HAVE to cut
>> energy availability."
>
> And it's _not_ saying "and you need to do so in a way that is
> economically viable."

Right; necessity doesn't kneel to economics.

Dave, sorry, Shawm!

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

>> Where I live, using a neighboring region's hydro as infill for
>> my region's wind power (And as infill for California's solar)
>> makes a lot of sense.
>
> And for the other 99.99% of humanity? Or would you rather they just
> quietly die in the dark?

Well, if they're living near nuclear waste it won't BE dark, now WILL it?

Dave, Asimov had the right idea. Just gently radioactivize the whole world...

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-05, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

>> Quadibloc [*] <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in

>> > Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> Some are: or have been. BBC in particular used meteorology
>> >> scientists to prepare and then present daily forecasts.
>> >> And some, on the other hand, are just television read-out-ers.
>> >
>> > Of course, some television read-out-ers can have value to
>> > society.
>> >
>> > For example, that was what Raquel Welch was doing before
>> > _Fantastic Voyage_.
>>
>> Assuming that men and women are equally likely to be gay, that's of
>> value to only _half_ of society (and really, even then, only the
>> percentage that can afford lots of Kleenex(tm).)
>
> Something has gone wrong with this argument.

But votta vay to go, boychik!

(check the [*] for yer clue)

> What I had in mind is that sometimes the weather presenter
> is a meteorological scientist, and sometimes they are not.

Dave, six of one and a half dozen of the anchor

[Peter Trei]

I don't have a beef with them. I like EVs. I'm seriously considering a
Tesla 3 for my next car.

If your overall goal is to reduce carbon emission, it makes big difference
if you're charging your electric car with electricity 100% from coal, or from
hydro power. In the US, about 60% of electricity overall is coal and oil
based. In New England, its about 40% (we get a lot of hydropower from Canada).
In Nebraska, its like 90% fossil fuels.

You might like to look at
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html
The guy is a total Tesla fanboy (as are most who've driven one), but this
page is *very* data rich, addresses the arguments pro and con, and has a
wealth of references to even more data.

Specifically for this issue:
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

pt


pt

[Peter Trei]

If we want to reduce methane in the atmosphere, it may be relevant.

But there is an important issue here - we can reduce the issue of dumping
*more* fossil carbon into the atmosphere by switching to non-fossil carbon,
mostly derived from plants which until harvested, were pulling carbon *out*
of the atmosphere.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:SPKdnTOkDfebOZ7K...@earthlink.com:

> On 2016-04-05, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>> Where I live, using a neighboring region's hydro as infill for
>>> my region's wind power (And as infill for California's solar)
>>> makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> And for the other 99.99% of humanity? Or would you rather they
>> just quietly die in the dark?
>
> Well, if they're living near nuclear waste it won't BE dark, now
> WILL it?
>
> Dave, Asimov had the right idea. Just gently radioactivize the
> whole world...

That makes as much sense, if not more, than many environmental
activists.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 14:50:13 UTC+1, Peter Trei wrote:
> [But electric cars still run on fossil fuel.]

> If your overall goal is to reduce carbon emission, it makes big difference
> if you're charging your electric car with electricity 100% from coal, or from
> hydro power. In the US, about 60% of electricity overall is coal and oil
> based. In New England, its about 40% (we get a lot of hydropower from Canada).
> In Nebraska, its like 90% fossil fuels.
>
> You might like to look at
> http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html
> The guy is a total Tesla fanboy (as are most who've driven one), but this
> page is *very* data rich, addresses the arguments pro and con, and has a
> wealth of references to even more data.
>
> Specifically for this issue:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

I haven't checked your references, but, one argument made
is that irregular renewable electricity for your household
works better if you have a large battery... which you do,
in your electric car. So, you plug your car into your home
and, as necessary, you power your home from your car.

Which is fine until you have to go somewhere. Particularly
if other family members are staying home.

Incidentally, other statements on home energy use often
mistake "energy use" and "electricity use". Many homes
also use fossil or other energy for heat - space heating,
water heating, cooking. This may be not included in
electricity use statistics which may basically only
refer to lighting and TV. (If your TV is large enough,
it may be all the lighting that you need.)

Recently I heard about an old-time household gas-fuelled
radio which (1) mainly made some sense if you hadn't got
electricity and (2) may have been promoted by your gas
company which also fuelled your lights and didn't want
you to switch over to electricity and maybe no gas.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote in
news:1ml8dpn.xhnn28102s9mcN%news{@bestley.co.uk:

4,500 square miles contaminated beyond Japan's allowable exposure
rate. That's the allowable exposure rate *before* Fukushima, of
course; they raised it to 20 times that of the US to donwplay the
damage. Even then, there's over 300 square miles still considered
too radioactive for human habitation. These areas have been
evactuated - permanently.

And as is typical of the whackjobs on boths sides, you ignore the
practical cost. 160,000 people displaced, estimated financial
losses of $250-500 billion, most of it uncompensated. Many are
still paying mortgages on homes they will never be allowed to
inhabit again. As for the cost in lives, it is hard to measure
(especially if, like the Japanese government, you actively qavoid
trying), and can't be tallied for years, as the cesium that
contaminated over 11,000 square miles accumulates in the heart,
kidneys and other organs, as it works its way up the food chain
(and that's been tracked as far as 200 miles away). About half of
all fish caught off the coast of Japan is now too contaminated with
cesium to eat after the largest discharge of radtioactive materials
into the ocean ever.

Meanwhile, the site continues to leak radioactive waste into the
local environment, including the water table, and cleanup efforts
have accomplished basically nothing. There are 50,000,000 gallons
of very radioactive water stored on site, from trying to keep the
completely melted down uranium cores of three reactors from going
Chernobyl, which is to say, actively catching fire. There are years
more of active work to keep that from happending, with an order of
magnitude more potential radiation from a hydrogen explosion than
Chernobyl itself released. (Most of that, BTW, is in spent fuel
cells, which Japan also has no plan to safely store for thousands
of years.)

Your pretending that Fukushima wasn't the second worst (so far,
with the potential to be worse than Chernobyl for years to come)
nuclear disaster in history - including, IMO, the bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - is the reason why people with a normal IQ
don't take you seriously.