The ethical question no climate denier will answer

I really don't think they expect to be taken seriously. And I honestly think that they do not care about "Greenhouse Gasses". They just want some club they can use to beat up "The Corporations", and try to exploit more money for their special programs.

Several pages ago I made the same challenge I often make in these threads: What are these people doing themselves to help solve the problem? And I do not mean "raising awareness" or "screaming at the top of their lungs to end it". I mean real ways that they are trying to solve the issue. Changes they have made in their lives or lifestyle to address the problem.

And as usual, the answer was deafening silence.

I mostly laugh, because all to often these people really do not have a clue how to solve the problem, they just like to scream. And of course get money to sink into "black hole" programs like Solar and Wind energy (which some reports now show may actually increase "Global Warming". Then they turn right around and ignore technologies that are mature and proven, like nuclear and hydroelectric.

They scream about corporate pollution, ignoring that the majority in this country is actually from personal vehicles. And when I challenge these people as to how they get themselves from one place to another, nobody says anything.

Guilt? Not wanting to look like a fool for admitting they drive a V8 SUV? Not wanting to even try to carpool or vanpool? This is why I dismiss most of this crowd, a perfect example of the "Limousine Liberal", who screams at others to sole a problem, as they ignore it themselves.

 

Of course humans have LIVED in a CO2 atmosphere that high. Apollo 13, 20,000 ppm. Duh....thought they taught that one in even the public schools.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you THINK they are doing? Burning everything they can find to do work to make their lives better, and breathing. Unlikely they will stop either soon.

 

Now don't go involving science in all of this, you will only confuse people.

This is why I do not even try to describe how Oxygen is poisonous to humans. And I am not talking about Carbon Monoxide or any of the other isotopes, your standard O2 can be a deadly poison. But I try not to confuse people with facts like that, it makes their little brains hurt.

 

Yes and when one considers the cost of Obama signing such an executive order ($0 to mandate federal vehicles run on NG) it seems you are 100% correct.

 

The same way you know anything: you look at the evidence and make an informed decision.

 

We do have data that goes back millions of years. It may not be the data you like. And they won't ever report it on Fox News. But it's there, if you know where to look for it.

Predicting weather and predicting climate are two completely different things. I can't predict where the ball will fall on the next spin of the roulette wheel, at all. But I can predict, with a very high degree of confidence, that over the course of a year's worth of spins, the house will win.

So, you believe we should do "everything within reason", UNLESS you have to change your lifestyle. Do you see any hypocrisy in that?

Believe it or not, global warming has nothing to do with Al Gore. There were over 1000 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals in the last year. Not one of them cited Al Gore. How many of them did you read?

 

Really???? My patience with people who are unable to understand what they read is wearing thin.

in the atmosphere, not in a space capsule. Why don't you try living in an envirnment with levels of 2000ppm. Let me know how you make out.

Chronic Exposure to Moderately Elevated CO2 during Long-Duration Space Flight

And I noticed you ignored this:
Some plants will benefit; others won't.
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

 

No, you have extrapolations, theories, and indirect data that is used to estimate the data you claim to have. Sorry, but I understand the differences between these even if you do not.

THis is like looking at a cake and trying to estimate at what temperature it was baked at. You have no "history thermometers" that can be used to show what the real temperature and climate was. And whenever somebody tries to make claims like that, to me they are simply showing how ignorant they are. This is why people look at differing climate models, and all of them predict drought. Green House Gases! Temperature Rising! World-wide Drought! All Plants Dying!

BTW, I have made the conscious choices to "change my lifestyle" many years ago, what have you done?

 

so what exactly do you think we should do ?

source : http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ts/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-BLomborg-20130425.pdf


these are all hard facts and figures, no theory involved

so what great plan do you greenies have that has not already been tried and failed?

 

Water! WATER! is a poison. Can you BELIEVE IT!!

Humans are just so damn sure of everything...how is this for a mind bender? What, in the past 100 million years, has been the most powerful, climate changing BIOLOGIC on this planet? A clue! It ain't us!

 

I recommend you take your own advice. Might take a few more years to brush up on the "informed" part....certainly the ease with which the original question can be answered would seem to indicate that MANY years might be needed....

 

I agree. The lush flora and fauna of the world when it was 10C warmer and CO2 levels were at 2000-3000 ppm certainly shouldn't need to be announced on Fox News, should be pretty common knowledge to 4th graders.

Believe it or not, Al Gore knows nothing about global warming.

Fixed it for ya!

Have any of them retracted the use of climate models which led to this particularly poor result? Admittedly, the work was by Hansen, and we all know how poor his credibility is!

How about this for a brain teaser! Hansen said if we stopped all CO2 emissions, and had no more growth after 2000, we could limit temperatures to only an increase of +0.5C. Instead, we burned everything we could find, skyrocketing CO2, and we did even better than that!! This is great! The more CO2 we burn, the better we undershoot the model made by the folks funded to write those 1000 papers!

 

What exactly did you think they were BREATHING in that space capsule? A clue! It wasn't vacuum! It was...atmosphere! If you meant "only air and nitrogen and CO2 in an atmosphere on a planet during this age or epoch", you should have SAID so. But you didn't. If your thinking is as sloppy as your writing and grandiose "questions", may I recommend a good remedial technical writing class at a local community college?

 

Or how about the life form that completely destroyed the atmosphere of the planet, causing the extinction of pretty much all other life forms. This one life form so completely changed the atmosphere of Earth that it was the predominant species on the planet by the time it finished.

Now that is "climate change".

 

And you still ignored this:
Some plants will benefit; others won't.
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

 

Lets put some numbers to the problem:

The only "source" of CO2 neutral energy (after they are built, shipped and installed) that is viable today for mass distribution is solar panels.

Our global annual power use (as of 2010) was 12,717 MToe (million tonnes of oil, equivalent).

Page 6 of http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf

12,717 MToe at 11.63 megawatt hours per Toe = 144,000 TeraWatt Hrs per year.

That would require 480 trillion 300W solar panels. Even at $100 per panel, that is $48,000T (today, they retail for ~$300 ea.). The total array would be 300 miles on a side, where it is never cloudy. Except, we don't have sun 24 hours a day. Europe, Asia, and Africa could just about provide power 24 hours a day, with one connected grid. The America's could squeak out 9 hours a day. Australia, and Islands - sorry.

Solar panels last about 20 years - so the annual maintenance cost, $2400T.

That ignores infrastructure costs, converting all transportation to electric (planes and ships??).



As of 2010, the globe spends ~ $7.5T a year on energy.

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/2010-03-22_EWG_Energy_Costs_World_E_01.pdf



Any questions?

 

trying to get off carbon based energy with today's technology just cant be done. We need a way to store power that just is not here yet.

Saw a paper recently that used a computer as a metaphor. We did not mass produce vacuum tubes to make a better computer, we evolved a whole new technology.

 

And ironically, it is also ignoring a past example of the Government getting involved in power production, the TVA.

One of the few cases I can think of where the Government got involved in an industry and improved the lives of millions of people wat the Tennessee Valley Authority. One of the Alphabet Soup programs of FDR, it built dozens of dams for both flood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power. This also created a huge number of civilian jobs, not just a handfull for small high-tech companies that did not help the economy at all.

I think an all-to common problem that people have is that they try to over-complicate things. Instead of taking the most basic solution, they jump to the newest fad because it is "more modern". And while hydro is the "original green power", when was the last time anybody in here heard of a new hydro project being developed?

 

don't think their are too many more rivers where Hydro electric is feasable

Fracking technology has came leaps and bounds in the last few years and NG is rapidly replacing coal in the US. Only three real 24 and 7 commercial electrical options, Nuke, Coal , and NG. None are perfect and none are long term but investing money into R&D and finding a replacement for the current vacuum tube state of alternatives is much better than tossing money into a rat hole like Europe did

 

I didn't ignore it. Whoever posted it appears to not understand the obvious, ANY change involves benefit to some, loss to others. Stating the obvious seems a bit ridiculous, are you suggesting if someone stated the sun will rise in the east tomorrow I am supposed to get all excited and pretend it is proof? Of..something? Did you go to a public school which deprived its students of knowledge of this particular tidbit backing up exactly WHY the obvious is obvious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

No, but I loved the calculations. Can't say the assumption is particularly valid, why would humans concentrate on only one solution? Seems like we are already trying out 3 or 4 or 5, I like the variety of that type of solution, versus the "one size fits all" approach. But I love the calculations, keep up the good work.

 

What are those 3, 4 or 5 solutions? I'll see if I can do a cost calculation for each of them.

 

Yeah, that's my point. Your argument didn't address the question, so go ahead and take the evidence and present it as argument. No point side-stepping it with fallacies.

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all you have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

That's not what your initial post stated. It's called moving the goal posts.

So now your next assignment will be to show the benefits outweigh the losses. Make sure you take into account the loss of species in the ocean due to the change in pH.

 

so whats the plan for lowering Co2 Mannie? keep dumping money into methods which have already failed ? Kyoto agreement managed to reduce the increase of Co2 a whopping .5 % from 49.5 % increase to 49.4% increase. Solar has proven to be a failure in bot Germany and Spain? Wind is even more of a joke. What's your great plan, some Noble Laureates over at the http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/ need to know, because they don't have a clue other than R&D into something that might actually work http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ts/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-BLomborg-20130425.pdf