Deny No More

reply to post by Kali74


You've probably already seen this. But for those who haven't......

reply to post by Kali74


stars and flag for you!!! thank you for all of this. great post, great research.

reply to post by DexterRiley


Thanks for your well thought out response, though I disagree somewhat I have to say I wouldn't consider it a rant and is worth it's own thread.

That said, I don't think that a transition has to be painful. I think we are perfectly capable of maintaining the progress we have made in the industrial revolution and can continue progressing in a renewable revolution. The only thing that really needs to change is our energy sources.

reply to post by BritofTexas

 

I hadn't seen that yet, very informative thanks

reply to post by Kali74

Hello Kali, thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DexterRiley

 

That said, I don't think that a transition has to be painful. I think we are perfectly capable of maintaining the progress we have made in the industrial revolution and can continue progressing in a renewable revolution. The only thing that really needs to change is our energy sources.

I think the approach is a bit more complicated.

The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere.

So, to me that would indicate that we need to address not only the energy sources, but also the way those energy sources are utilized. Many of the steps that I listed in my previous posts related more to activities that reduce the amount of energy that we waste. Addressing poor utilization of existing energy resources is easier to do than making wholesale changes to the source of that energy. And that in itself is "painful." The pain can be as mild as remembering to bring re-usable grocery bags to the grocery store. Or it can be as severe as government imposed rationing of fuel.

While I agree that alternative energy sources are an absolute necessity, transition to those new energy sources has to take place over a period of time. The length of that transition period will dictate the amount of climate change that will be incurred. That is if GHG levels really play as significant a part in GCC as the models indicate. As I indicated before, I see plenty of reason to move to alternative energy sources without having to defend AGW.

When the energy-industrial-complex does decide to pursue other energy sources, the next energy source in the queue is Natural Gas. This is much more GHG friendly, but CO2 is still emitted in the combustion process. However, the most disturbing aspect of the use of Natural Gas is the fracking process used to get to the hidden sources.

I see you have started another thread Solar Report concerning Solar Energy usage. I haven't had the chance to read the report, but I'm sure I will have a few comments that I'll make in that thread.

Thanks for starting a thread discussing the political and social impacts of GCC. There are plenty of discussions concerning the science and pseudo-science of global warming. But obviously there are aspects of this argument that we overlook.


Thanks S+F

Dex

PS. When you mentioned the Industrial Revolution, it occurred to me that in the very beginning the factories were actually using renewable energy. Their prime movers were hydromechanical (water wheels.) However, once the steam engine was invented, the Industrial Revolution kicked into high gear and mankind has never looked back.

The problem with AGW is not the science (which is solid), but rather the solutions proposed to decrease its affects. Barring fascist policies on a global scale, it seems nothing will be effective at this point in time, and there's absolutely no good evidence that would suggest that even if we were to curb all emissions tomorrow that we could halt all the devastating affects in the near and distant future. Ergo, most people would want to do nothing even if they accept AGW. Better to live in a dystopia where you at least have your inalienable rights and freedoms than a fascist dictatorship with a relatively better climate.

reply to post by Diablos


I appreciate that you acknowledge the Science. But you lost me a bit, well I get lost in general when I come across this notion of the solutions being Fascist or tools of the NWO. We can cut our emissions without great pains. The current World Order is extremely dependent on fossil fuels, that's why the Fossil Fuels Industry are the major players of this World Order, that's how they're able to control the conversation and deny the science so strongly.

Here's my conspiracy theory on AGW... through denialism and lies about alternatives (paid for by Exxon, Koch Industries et al) we do nothing, the planet continues to warm, coastal cities world wide begin to flood, drought wreaks havoc on our food supplies, glaciers that once provided fresh water to billions are gone. All of this will force massive migrations on every populated continent. Who will control those migrations and resettlements? The militaries of the world and imagine the wars we fight then.

Originally posted by Kali74

I appreciate that you acknowledge the Science. But you lost me a bit, well I get lost in general when I come across this notion of the solutions being Fascist or tools of the NWO. We can cut our emissions without great pains. The current World Order is extremely dependent on fossil fuels, that's why the Fossil Fuels Industry are the major players of this World Order, that's how they're able to control the conversation and deny the science so strongly.

Here's my conspiracy theory on AGW... through denialism and lies about alternatives (paid for by Exxon, Koch Industries et al) we do nothing, the planet continues to warm, coastal cities world wide begin to flood, drought wreaks havoc on our food supplies, glaciers that once provided fresh water to billions are gone. All of this will force massive migrations on every populated continent. Who will control those migrations and resettlements? The militaries of the world and imagine the wars we fight then.

I would suggest you read the blog of astrophysicist Tom Murphy who teaches a course at UCSD on energy sources. He gives the rundown of all possible alternative energy sources and shows from a practical perspective why they will never be mainstream. He's a wacko alarmist but most of his analyses are scientifically sound.

Also, just how many billions have been spent on alternative energy sources such as geothermal and solar energy? Why is it these green corporations that the government subsidizes to the tune of billions of dollars have nothing to show for it? Because it is simply a gimmick and won't really ever be as practical as fossil-fuels are in the long-run.

I'd S&F this 1000 times if I could.

Nice work.

If Climate Scientists Are In It For The Money, They’re Doing It Wrong

So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000.

It's also worth pointing out what they get that money for, as exemplified by a fairly typical program announcement for NSF grants. Note that it calls for studies of past climate change and its impact on the weather. This sort of research could support the current consensus view, but it just as easily might not. And here's the thing: it's impossible to tell before the work's done. Even a study looking at the flow of carbon into and out of the atmosphere, which would seem to be destined to focus on anthropogenic climate influences, might identify a previously unknown or underestimated sink or feedback.

So, even if the granting process were biased (and there's been no indication that it is), there is no way for it to prevent people from obtaining contrary data. The granting system is also set up to induce people to publish it, since a grant that doesn't produce scientific papers can make it impossible for a professor to obtain future funding.

Maybe the money is in the perks that come with grants, which provide for travel and lab toys. Unfortunately, there's no indication that there's lots of money out there for the taking, either from the public or private sector. For the US government, spending on climate research across 13 different agencies (from the Department of State to NASA) is tracked by the US Climate Change Science Program. The group has tracked the research budget since 1989, but not everything was brought under its umbrella until 1991. That year, according to CCSP figures, about $1.45 billion was spent on climate research (all figures are in 2007 dollars). Funding peaked back in 1995 at $2.4 billion, then bottomed out in 2006 at only $1.7 billion.

source

Not a very lucrative field at all. And no corporations or Think Tanks to go to either. Unpopular Science.

Speaking of Think Tanks... the ones that are funded to 'debunk' climate change? Their leaders make several hundred thousand dollars a year.