Lies and misinformation of the deniers

This is from that senate report. I found Sussman on it. He is funny. Here is what he said:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

 

So many lies so I will let you respond to one lie ate a time. No response from you and I will assume a white flag from you. I will start off with a lie that should be obvious to everyone; even those who have severe reading comprehension problems.
From your link:

But yet the IPCC report states:

I will be anxiously awaiting your response.

 

In order for the US to maintain our current level of CO2 emissions, we need to adopt Europe's energy policy. What is that cost, in dollars, per consumer?

How much more is required to reduce emissions by 10%, 30%, 70%, 100%?

 

We are going in circles. The energy expended in the demand that everyone believe in MMGW far exceeds the effort to come up with viable solutions.

Say all the deniers magically believe - then what! Show me the plan.

Every time I ask, I ether get more "gotta believe" drivel, or I get links to long rambling papers describing far too many, half baked concepts. The only reason for many solutions is because none of them solve the problem.

The IPCC has killed God knows how many trees printing their "science", where is the alternative energy science?

 

I am pretty sure someone has already linked to the Garnaut Report. ( I see you are still using the Lundz recommended tactic of emphasizing uncertainty to dismiss AGW) In case I am mistaken, here it is again.
Or you can go straight to the IPCC Mitigation section of the AR4

 

I think the professor knows what he is talking about more than you know what you are talking about. He has probably looked at the actual models, where you have not. One quote about Solar flares in modeling does not disprove his statement.

If you want to go on believing that CO2 which is a naturally occuring gas, which is only makes up something like 2% of greenhouse gases, and something like 90% of that occurs naturally is causing the globe to warm, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but we won't see any substantial change in our lifetimes, go ahead and believe that. I've got more important things to worry about than the sky is falling.

 

This is your answer to

You give me 244 pages of rambling as an answer?

I read the 14 pages titled "3 What’s a fair share?" ending with

I have no idea how the conclusion is related to the rest of the chapter.

To find out what? Is an answer buried in there somewhere?

Chapter 12: Sustainable Development and mitigation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 The two-way relationship between sustainable development and climate change
12.1.2 Evolution and articulation of the concept of sustainable development
12.1.3 Measurement of progress towards sustainable development
12.2 Implications of development choices for climate change mitigation
12.2.1 Multiplicity of plausible development pathways ahead, with different economic, social and environmental content
12.2.2 Lower emissions pathways are not necessarily associated with lower economic growth
12.2.3 Changing development pathway requires working with multiple actors, at multiple scales
12.2.4 Opportunities at the sectoral level to change development pathways towards lower emissions through development policies
12.3 Implications of mitigation choices for sustainable development goals
12.3.1 Energy supply and use
12.3.2 Forestry sector
12.3.3 Agriculture sector
12.3.4 Waste and wastewater management sector
12.3.5 Implications of climate policies for sustainable development
12.4 Gaps in knowledge and future research needs ​

If there was an answer, it shouldn't take more than a few sentences.

 

You're apparently not aware that Inhofe's list of "scientists" includes TV weathercasters (at least one with no college degree), creationists, and other non-qualified wannabes. Let's face it: any list that is used as an example of unethical behavior by Ethics Daily -- published by the conservative Southern Baptists -- has got a problem.

So anything that Nature can do, Man cannot do? How ridiculous is that claim?

EU estimates put the cost of global warming at over $70 trillion by 2100. That's why we want to stop it.

 

It looks like I was mistaken; reading comprehension is necessary to understand why what Herrara wrote is a lie.
What you "think" is irrelevant. The fact is that models include solar activity. Why do you not look at the models instead of taking Herrara's word? I have and the models, just like the IPCC states includes solar activity.

Irrelevant. It is the contribution of each GHG to warming that is important; not how much of the gas is in the atmosphere. Each GHG differs in the absorption and emission of IR.
Incorrect.

 

You originally wrote

You did not ask for a summary. Just because you do not like the answer, it is not my problem if you want to remain ignorant of the facts and are too lazy to learn. It is not my job to make your education easy. Once again you are unfamiliar with the studies but just because you are unfamiliar with the facts does not mean AGW is wrong.

Why? Because you say so? Economists and climate scientists study their profession for years and you expect them to summarize their knowledge "in a few sentences"? OK. Here is the wiki version:

 

I didn't ask about MMGW, I asked what it would cost - the reports you provided they didn't answer my question. They didn't even address my question.

Yes.

I am very skilled in my field, and I am expected to explain my position clearly, so as to not waste everyones time.

In my experience, when someone goes into a long diatribe, it is because they don't have the facts on their side.

That was my impression when I saw the chapter conclusion that didn't agree with the chapter.

Can you find anything to do with the cost to implement the solutions in you link?

Just to refresh your memory, my questions were:

The answer should be pretty simple, I didn't even ask the plan on getting there.

My guess is:

To stabilize CO2 production is $10T

To reduce emissions by:

10% - $30T
20% - $60T
30% - $120T
70% - $500T
100% - $800T​

Am I high or low?

 

There are AT least two major investigations into this - Stern Review in England and the Garnaut report in Australia. Both written by economists and both easily Googled

But you appear to be trying to erect unobtainable goal posts in the hope that people will try to reach them so you can call failure.

At the moment this is not about reducing emissions but preventing them from getting worse - first stabilise the problem THEN work on reducing it.

As for the actual cost - well America is taking the cheat's way out. It is letting everyone else do the expensive research and is waiting until options are nice and cheap before going down that road. Pity this means you will miss out on some golden opportunities to capitalise on new energy but still.................

 

The Garnaut was one of the reports provided as an answer. I scanned it, no information on the cost.

I read the Stern report when you provided it several weeks back. If I recall correctly, the cost info was in % of GDP with no details on where that money is spent.

I am asking the MMGW crowd to spend a few minutes (if it is that easy to find) and answer my questions. That's impossible?

Which is why I asked what it cost to maintain the current level.

Didn't you hear, the tax payers invested $500M in solar panel development.....

 

Other than the propoganda war that is being waged by the oil and coal lobbies in the U.S. (and many others) we have been in shooting wars for a long time.

The government is no longer trusted in this country and they can agree on nothing.
We are broke as a country and most people are deep in debt and in fear for their jobs. Most can't pay the bills now... so they dang sure do not want to throw money at a government that wastes it. Heck, they just spent a half billion dollars on a failed solar company.

So when the government wants to raise taxes... people (knowing history) feel the money will be wasted on nonsense...and they are probably right.

We are in a struggle for our very exsistance.

And I do not think we will make any progress when it comes to carbon reduction...and it will bite us in the butt.

 

Don't forget the proaganda war against coal and oil (for how many decades?), and prosperity in general.

+1!

How many times have taxes been raised to add teachers and police, only to end up in the general fund, followed by another tax hike for teachers and police....

Exaggerated by political infighting. (IMHO, a fight manufacturered to keep our eye off the ball).

Even simple solutions, nuclear & natural gas, are complicated by politics far more than they need to be - gotta love infighting....

 

Attack the credibility of the list? Come on, that is not gonna prove your case. And attacking someones religion as well? That is bigotry.

Man cannot make a volcano, and Earthquake, man cannot stop a hurricane or a tornado. So, yeah, my claim is valid. Are you saying that anything nature can do man can do also? How ridiculous is that claim?

EU? Really? Who cares what the EU thinks. Stop listening to those Eurotrash fools.

 

I'm quite sure you don't have access to the models or an in depth understanding of them.

The highlighted statement alone shows you do not know what you are talking about.

 

It's not my case, it's yours. You're the one who claimed that the consensus of scientists did not exist, and provided this flawed list as "evidence". Since you have no solid evidence, it's entirely appropriate for me to point out that your list lacks credibilty. So it's your claim that fails, not mine.

Since I didn't attack any religion, I expect an apology for that remark.

Not at all. There are some things nature and man can both do. You appear unable to tell the difference.

I get it. You don't have any evidence and you can't refute the number, so you're down to insults to "prove" your point. So brilliant, and so typical of deniers.

 

It doesn't exist (scientific consensus). Check my links and you will see over 700 scientists who do not agree. Anyone with common sense can agree that they are scientists, and they do not agree. Therefore there is no consensus. Consensus means that everyone agrees. If they all agreed, there would be no list of 700 scientists. Understand?

In your own words:

You seem to have a problem with creationists and Southern Baptists. They are Christians by the way, which is a religion. Attacking them for their beliefs is bigotry. Whether you agree with them or not as Southern Baptists or creationists is irrelevent to their scientific beliefs. Yet you use their belief system as a mean of attempting to discredit them. That is an attack on their religion. That is bigotry too. No appology required.

No need to refute a number picked out of the air (CO2 included) by Eurotrash airheads.

 

I understand perfectly: you have no idea of what the word "consensus" means. I invite you to look it up, and pay special attention to the difference between "consensus" and "unanimaty". Maybe you could write a compare/contrast essay for us.

I have a problem with creationists, because they advocate psuedoscience. But creationism is not a religion. (Oh, and by the way: not all creationists are Christian.)

I have no problem with Baptists of any stripe, nor with any other religion. If you actually read what I wrote, I am in support of the Southern Baptist ethical newsletter on this point. Please explain how writing in support of a religious view is the same thing as an attack, or is the same thing as bigotry. Or apologize, if you have enough ethics to do so.

No need to belabour the obvious: First, PatriotNews has no evidence, so he uses insults instead.

And second, PatriotNews still doesn't believe there are some things that both nature and man can do.

 

oh dear ... but its all changed now ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

this group is independent. they have been financed by some of the same people who fund sceptic sites, and they have debunked some sceptic myths.

that would take some puff out of the sceptics sails ... if they were rational.

 

How does "Professor Garnaut said that the overall cost to the Australian economy of tackling climate change under both the 450ppm and 550ppm scenarios was manageable and in the order of 0.1-0.2 per cent of annual economic growth to 2020.
The report estimated mitigation costs for 450ppm at almost a percentage point more than 550pmm mitigation of the present value of GNP through the 21st century. The report stated that stronger mitigation is justified by insurance value and non-market value benefits in the 21st century and much larger benefits beyond, and that the costs of action are less than the costs of inaction. " not address your question?

So you can explain, in detail, to me how transformers work in a few sentences?

In a "few sentences"?
I guessed you are an engineer very skilled in your field. But, from previous experiences, sometimes skilled engineers are not very good in real world situations. Please do not take this as an insult but sometimes engineers tend to look at the world as orderly as their professions; as black and white, wrong or right. To a some very skilled engineers, IMO, the color gray does not exist.

IN the 1970s. the government passed laws to clean up air and water. The exact costs and results were unknown. Do you think the government should have waited until the exact costs were known?

I have difficulties discussing generalities. What conclusions contradict what was written in the chapter?

High

 

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera

Where does it state that he has experience with climate models?
What evidence leads you to the conclusion that Herrara has an in depth understanding of climate models? Wishful thinking or telepathy?
As a matter of fact:

Perfect example of why you have the label of denier; deny what I state but refuse to explain. Explain to me why my statement is wrong!

 

we will be finding out in the not too distant future. the general forecasts are that it will affect us consierably less than market volatility and the cnages in currency exchange rates.

wonder why these guys don't get their knickers in a twist over poor economic management resulting from years of poor regulation of the US finance sector?

 

Does he have a hard time with actual numbers? 0.2% of annual economic growth? Does that apply during a recession with no, or negative ecomic growth?

Does that spending zero out CO2 generation?

If an engineer gave me that statement, my comment would be "weasle words". It sounds impressive, but contains nothing that supports the statement.

The driven winding (primary) on a transformer converts alternating current (AC) voltage to an alternating magnetic field. The driven winding (secondary) converts that magnetic field into an AC voltage. The ratio of primary winding turns to secondary winding turns is the same as the ratio of the primary voltage to secondary voltage.

Do you want me to describe leakage inductance, Cww, and how to determine the power a transformer can handle?

In contrast to politicians which weave the right buzz words into a statement that sounds impressive, but means nothing?

Early in my career, I realized I needed to clearly communicate technical content to non-technical people.

I lived in Los Angeles in the 70's. The cost of pollution was well known. Reducing pollution by 90% had high value. To go from 90 to 95% cost as much, with very little value. To go from 95% to 97%, as expensive, with no benefit, etc....

Generalities?ROTFL