Climate Deniers and Saudi Arabia Agree on ‘Climategate’

Environment • Views: 4,801

Right wingers screaming for investigations into “Climategate” are on the same side as the apartheid theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

COPENHAGEN — Saudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into “climategate” Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning here.

“We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations,” the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.

Now, why would one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world want to promote “Climategate” as a crisis of confidence for global warming? Hmm. It’s a head-scratcher, all right.

The very last thing the Saudis want is for the western world to get serious about alternate sources of energy.

And climate change deniers are playing right into their hands.

Jump to bottom

333 comments
1 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:03:33pm

We're going to need another layer of tin foil.

2 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:04:23pm

Is it mean to suggest a tin foil turban, as a wardrobe addition to the classic hat shape?

3 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:04:48pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

Tin foil burka for you!

4 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:04:55pm

Does Saudi Arabia even have scientists?

5 ignoranceisfatal  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:05:00pm

Tin foil burqa?re: #3 Killgore Trout

Tin foil burka for you!

Gah, beat me to it.

6 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:05:20pm

It's True.

I listened to the Saudi speech in Arabic and heard him say "climategate" in English.

Later on Freetoken pointed out the English translation tab.

7 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:06:16pm

You know, if i was a man about town in Saudi Arabia (because you're not allowed to be a woman around town...self-congratulatory chuckle), i'd be pissed. the last thing i'd want is a HOTTER Saudi Arabia!

8 stayfrosty  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:07:16pm

Does this mean they support not letting women drive?

9 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:08:21pm

All you're Zionist ACORNS are belong to us!
/Sheikh Mullah Muhammed al-Glenn Beckistani

10 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:08:57pm

Just think when we finally make that fuel breakthrough, and we don't have to fund the wahabists any more. That will certainly put a crimp in their ability to fund islamic fundamentalism world wide.

11 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:09:18pm

[Glen Beck finds he's in league with the Saudis. His head promptly explodes.]

/A man can dream..

12 avanti  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:09:34pm

From the Saudi press on Climategate:

link.

13 ignoranceisfatal  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:10:13pm

re: #10 Sharmuta

Just think when we finally make that fuel breakthrough, and we don't have to fund the wahabists any more. That will certainly put a crimp in their ability to fund islamic fundamentalism world wide.

Them and the Canadians, eh?

14 jaunte  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:10:37pm

Torn between two clients:
Hill & Knowlton Public Relations is representing both Saudi Aramco and the Copenhagen Climate Council:
[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

15 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:10:53pm

re: #5 ignoranceisfatal

She'd be like a giant Jiffy Pop in the Saudi heat.

16 bosforus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:11:42pm

re: #10 Sharmuta

Just think when we finally make that fuel breakthrough, and we don't have to fund the wahabists any more. That will certainly put a crimp in their ability to fund islamic fundamentalism world wide.

Well, whenever it is that that happens, I hope these things are somehow involved.
Steam powered insect

17 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:11:50pm

The very last thing the Saudis want is for the western world to get serious about alternate sources of energy.

And climate change deniers are playing right into their hands.

18 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:12:43pm

re: #17 Charles

The very last thing the Saudis want is for the western world to get serious about alternate sources of energy.

And climate change deniers are playing right into their hands.

Never truer words spoken on this site.

19 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:12:45pm

From Politico - "But the Saudi negotiator told delegates that “the level of confidence is certainty shaken.”

I have it on good confidence that off-mic, the negotiator continued "...because those Russian hackers were cheap, and now we're afraid they'll sell us out too"

20 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:14:55pm

re: #18 ludwigvanquixote

Welcome back.

21 bloodnok  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:15:26pm

Later, folks. Have a good night.

22 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:15:28pm

re: #18 ludwigvanquixote

Never truer words spoken on this site.

Hello, Ludwig! Glad to have you back.

23 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:15:52pm

re: #21 bloodnok

Later, folks. Have a good night.

Goodnight, bloodnok.

24 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:16:26pm

re: #18 ludwigvanquixote

Never truer words spoken on this site.

Thank goodness you're back. I have really been concerned, and I have been asking about you.

25 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:16:37pm

If people really, really have patriotism in the United States, they really, really, really should be supporting our scientists so that we can be the world leaders in new energy. The nation that does it best is going to gain enormous power and influence.

How about let's make that country the USA?

26 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:16:55pm

re: #3 Killgore Trout

Tin foil burka for you!

I think that would be noisy.

27 cliffster  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:17:22pm

re: #18 ludwigvanquixote

Never truer words spoken on this site.

Hey Ludwig, how's it hangin'?

28 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:17:24pm

re: #4 Obdicut

Does Saudi Arabia even have scientists?

Yes. Mostly oil engineers. They import them.

29 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:17:28pm

re: #16 bosforus

Well, whenever it is that that happens, I hope these things are somehow involved.
Steam powered insect

You forgot its cousin, the solar insect

30 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:17:37pm

So let's get a couple of things really clear.

The people who are the most opposed to taking climate change seriously are exactly those who in general hate America - and the corporate and financial interests that are attached to them.

By all means, let's destroy the ecosystem. It funds the Saudis and Venezuela and Exxon.

And we know that hose people all love the average American. For all the talk of taxes, I am always astounded at the fact that money out of my pocket is well money out of my pocket. Is the idea of developing alternative energy sources - and paying for them with tax dollars so much worse then giving my money to oil companies, dictators and fanatical terroist supporting regimes?

But let's not forget the science. Suppose that fixing this cost trillions. Given the alternative is the collapse of civilization as we know it, it would be worth spending those trillions.

31 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:17:57pm

More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette

32 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:18:12pm

re: #7 Aceofwhat?

You know, if i was a man about town in Saudi Arabia (because you're not allowed to be a woman around town...self-congratulatory chuckle), i'd be pissed. the last thing i'd want is a HOTTER Saudi Arabia!

The wealthy can afford air conditioning.

The poor can put up, shut up, or go back to the Philippines.

33 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:18:46pm

re: #20 Bagua

re: #27 cliffster

re: #24 Walter L. Newton

re: #22 Dark_Falcon

Glad to be back. I've been working very hard lately. Not a lot of time to post.

34 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:18:49pm

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

The wealthy can afford air conditioning.

The poor can put up, shut up, or go back to the Philippines.

Or they can't, because they're basically slaves.

/always turns my stomach that we're allied with Saudi Arabia.

35 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:18:55pm

re: #18 ludwigvanquixote

Never truer words spoken on this site.

Ludwig! YOU'RE ALIVE!

36 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:19:24pm

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

Ludwig! YOU'RE ALIVE!

Thank Hashem yes I believe I am. Been busy though.

37 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:19:45pm

re: #31 Killgore Trout

X-mas version...
Give the Gift of Cigarettes this Christmas

38 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:20:17pm

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

The wealthy can afford air conditioning.

The poor can put up, shut up, or go back to the Philippines.

you're moving too quickly for me (i'm up past my bedtime). Philippines?

39 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:20:27pm

re: #33 ludwigvanquixote



Glad to be back. I've been working very hard lately. Not a lot of time to post.

My running joke was that you'd be back soon, you were just busy deleting emails and cleaning up your code comments like everyone else.

40 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:20:56pm

re: #38 Aceofwhat?

you're moving too quickly for me (i'm up past my bedtime). Philippines?

Saudi uses a lot of 'guest workers' from there.

41 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:02pm

re: #38 Aceofwhat?

you're moving too quickly for me (i'm up past my bedtime). Philippines?

That's where they ship a lot of their slave labor from.

42 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:07pm

re: #34 Obdicut

Or they can't, because they're basically slaves.

/always turns my stomach that we're allied with Saudi Arabia.

The name "Oil Ticks" describes the Saudis very well. Anything that will hammer them is not all bad in my book.

43 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:08pm

re: #39 Bagua

My running joke was that you'd be back soon, you were just busy deleting emails and cleaning up your code comments like everyone else.

?

Actually not... But I'm not sure what that means..

44 bosforus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:17pm

re: #29 Aceofwhat?

You forgot its cousin, the solar insect

Stupid blogspot photo links don't work. Is this the one?
[Link: ecologicnews.blogspot.com...]

45 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:18pm

re: #36 ludwigvanquixote

LVQ! Welcome back!

46 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:19pm

re: #38 Aceofwhat?

you're moving too quickly for me (i'm up past my bedtime). Philippines?

Saudi Arabia imports lots of domestic servants and other workers from the Philippines. They lure them with high contracts, but then either charge them enormous amounts for room and board or simply pay them less. They have very few rights, are often physically and sexually abused.

But that's Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace.

47 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:20pm

The right wing has always had a hypocritical relationship with the Saudis. That they now find themselves as the same side on the issue of climate change is something to be expected. Now they can expand that list which includes Alex Jones and a slew of European fascist right wing political parties.

48 jaunte  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:21:34pm

re: #37 Killgore Trout

Camel time!

49 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:22:09pm

re: #25 Obdicut

If people really, really have patriotism in the United States, they really, really, really should be supporting our scientists so that we can be the world leaders in new energy. The nation that does it best is going to gain enormous power and influence.

How about let's make that country the USA?

I'm all for it! We should make this a mission like the moon landing was in the 60s, only bigger.

50 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:22:17pm

re: #40 SanFranciscoZionist

Saudi uses a lot of 'guest workers' from there.

Right, sorry. I sucked the fun right out of your pithy post.

51 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:22:29pm

Another thing I mistrust the Saudis et. al. about is in data on the size and depletion of their Crude Oil fields.

52 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:23:01pm

re: #50 Aceofwhat?

Right, sorry. I sucked the fun right out of your pithy post.

:) No problem.

53 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:23:07pm

re: #51 Bagua

Another thing I mistrust the Saudis et. al. about is in data on the size and depletion of their Crude Oil fields.

They would never lie...

///

54 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:23:07pm

re: #49 Sharmuta

I'm all for it! We should make this a mission like the moon landing was in the 60s, only bigger.

We could if half the country wasn't skeptical or against it. There was no major party against NASA in the 60's because our common enemy was the ruskies.

55 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:23:15pm

re: #51 Bagua

Another thing I mistrust the Saudis et. al. about is in data on the size and depletion of their Crude Oil fields.

Isn't that data an official state secret there or am I thinking of kuwait?

56 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:23:33pm

re: #43 ludwigvanquixote

?

Actually not... But I'm not sure what that means..

Humour. There was a bit of a kerfuffle with emails since you've been away.

57 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:24:37pm

re: #43 ludwigvanquixote

?

Actually not... But I'm not sure what that means..

Its a "Climategate" joke.

58 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:24:37pm

re: #31 Killgore Trout

More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette


[Video]

Smokin' Camels

59 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:25:38pm

re: #54 recusancy

We could if half the country wasn't skeptical or against it. There was no major party against NASA in the 60's because our common enemy was the ruskies.

That's the point on selling then instead on the national security aspect. It's a two-fer- it's good for the planet and it's good to quit funding people who hates us.

60 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:25:54pm

OT but strangely related in the sense that it addresses the media hype.

I was talking to someone who was being "skeptical" about AGW because of something they saw on Fox.

I asked, "People on Fox support Intelligent Design, spout conspiracy theories and bash scientists all the time. Once they do that, why would you believe them to accurately report that the Earth orbits the Sun?"

So my latest submission to that is Fox calling Mr. Rogers Evil.

This is not a joke.

They hate Mr. Rogers.

[Link: www.break.com...]

61 SpaceJesus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:26:00pm

do these conservative fundamentalist christians who are against green technology realize that they are pouring cash into the pockets of the muslims and communists (chavez) every time they fill up their hummers and ford F-9000 heavy duty pickup trucks?

what the hell is this mental disconnect?

62 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:26:19pm

Here's the list of AGW denier allies thus far:

Alex Jones
Exxon/Mobil
Nick Griffin
Dansk Folkeparti
True Finns
LAOS
Lega Nord
Order and Justice
Reformed Political Party
Saudi Arabia
Slovak National Party
UKIP

63 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:26:27pm

re: #55 McSpiff

Isn't that data an official state secret there or am I thinking of kuwait?

They release "data" but many consider it to be a deliberate fabrication. Part of the cause is the Opec structure which encourages overstating reserves.

It is potentially destabilising should they run dry and the civilised world has not prepared a substitute. It would be a sudden transformation with all its complications and potential hardships.

64 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:26:53pm

re: #47 Gus 802

The right wing has always had a hypocritical relationship with the Saudis. That they now find themselves as the same side on the issue of climate change is something to be expected. Now they can expand that list which includes Alex Jones and a slew of European fascist right wing political parties.

Eh, it's on both sides. CodePink hasn't exactly spent the past ten years speaking truth to dictators on behalf of repressed women. One of the side effects of extremism on either side is that your worldview crumbles without borrowing the occasional strange bedfellow to prop it up. What's sad is how blind they are to the phenomenon.

65 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:27:28pm

re: #18 ludwigvanquixote

Hi, stranger!
Hope all is well with you?

66 Racer X  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:27:47pm

re: #60 ludwigvanquixote

Those bastards!

67 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:28:10pm

re: #59 Sharmuta

That's the point on selling then instead on the national security aspect. It's a two-fer- it's good for the planet and it's good to quit funding people who hates us.

But when I say "let's do it so we don't fund people who hate us" people (skeptics) come back with "Drill Here, Drill Now!"

68 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:28:32pm

re: #60 ludwigvanquixote

Buh...

Do not fuck with Mr. Rogers. Good god. Okay, FOX-- stay the fuck away from my childhood, please. Shit all over the news like you do, put bimbos all over the place, misuse every word you come across, but can you please not pull up the warm fuzzy memories of my childhood and start spilling political drool all over them?

69 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:28:54pm

re: #63 Bagua

That makes sense. I wonder if my country (Canada) does the same thing then?

70 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:29:11pm

re: #60 ludwigvanquixote

Honestly. Who throws a shoe?

//

71 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:30:09pm

re: #62 Gus 802

Here's the list of AGW denier allies thus far:

Alex Jones
Exxon/Mobil
Nick Griffin
Dansk Folkeparti
True Finns
LAOS
Lega Nord
Order and Justice
Reformed Political Party
Saudi Arabia
Slovak National Party
UKIP

I thought some of those were vodka brands. Not Saudi Arabia, mind you.

72 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:30:50pm

re: #61 SpaceJesus

do these conservative fundamentalist christians who are against green technology realize that they are pouring cash into the pockets of the muslims and communists (chavez) every time they fill up their hummers and ford F-9000 heavy duty pickup trucks?

what the hell is this mental disconnect?

What's to understand? Theo-cons like other religious fundamentalists.

73 ignoranceisfatal  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:30:53pm

re: #69 McSpiff

That makes sense. I wonder if my country (Canada) does the same thing then?

As a fellow Canadian, I'd excites me to think that our country is capable of such deviousness.

But, I doubt it.

74 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:31:28pm

re: #62 Gus 802

Here's the list of AGW denier allies thus far:

Alex Jones
Exxon/Mobil
Nick Griffin
Dansk Folkeparti
True Finns
LAOS
Lega Nord
Order and Justice
Reformed Political Party
Saudi Arabia
Slovak National Party
UKIP

Where did you get this list?

75 jaunte  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:31:32pm

re: #60 ludwigvanquixote

Hilarious. It's like an Onion parody.
The text supers:

MR ROGERS MIXED MESSAGE
"YOU"RE SPECIAL"

WAS MR ROGERS WRONG?
CHILD EGO BOOST

IS MT ROGERS RUINING KIDS?
SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT

76 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:31:50pm

Dear LVQ,
Glad to "see" you back.
Hope all is well with you.

I must go to sleep now.

77 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:32:11pm

re: #69 McSpiff

That makes sense. I wonder if my country (Canada) does the same thing then?

Canada is not a member of OPEC. If they had a reason to lie, it would be different.

The OPEC members are allowed to sell (officially) a percentage of the OPEC limit based proportionately on the size of their reserves. This gives each member an incentive to lie in favour of inflating the size of their reserves.

78 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:32:12pm

re: #73 ignoranceisfatal

As a fellow Canadian, I'd excites me to think that our country is capable of such deviousness.

But, I doubt it.

I suspect so.

///Good job staying on message comrade.

79 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:32:19pm

(These are) The Good Old Days

80 ignoranceisfatal  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:32:22pm

re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist

I thought some of those were vodka brands. Not Saudi Arabia, mind you.

Lega Nord. Ask for it by name.

81 jaunte  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:32:53pm

re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist

Shot of Vaclav Havel?

82 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:33:06pm

re: #72 Sharmuta

What's to understand? Theo-cons like other religious fundamentalists.

But they're supposed to hate these particular other religious fundamentalists.

83 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:33:37pm

re: #62 Gus 802

Here is a short list of AGW supporters.

NASA
NOAA
The American Physical Society
The National Academy of Science
The American Geophysical Union
The Royal Society (Britain)
Académie des sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Hmmm...

I could go on... I hope though that in this debate looking at this list of organizations, vs. the likes of Exxon and politicians and the Saudis on the other side, I like looking at medical organizations vs. a list of tobacco companies.

84 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:33:39pm

re: #61 SpaceJesus

do these conservative fundamentalist christians who are against green technology realize that they are pouring cash into the pockets of the muslims and communists (chavez) every time they fill up their hummers and ford F-9000 heavy duty pickup trucks?

what the hell is this mental disconnect?

Denial. Plus they get to blame Democrats for not being able to drill oil domestically. Of cre: #74 Walter L. Newton

Where did you get this list?

Those are the member parties of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group which is sponsering an Alternative Climate Conference which is also sponsored by the Danish People's Party. I had a link somewhere. They're getting several American anti-AGW notables to speak at the event.

85 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:34:08pm

re: #82 SanFranciscoZionist

But they're supposed to hate these particular other religious fundamentalists.

Like all extremes- they love and hate each other. They need each other, feed each other, define each other. The yin to the other's yang.

86 cliffster  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:34:08pm

Mark Cuban the wrestler.

Put his rich ass through the door

87 ghazidor  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:34:47pm
Right wingers screaming for investigations into “Climategate” are on the same side as the apartheid theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

Who'd of thunk it?
/

I have the damn stolen files and have read every email and now every bit of every data file searching for the smoking gun the deniers claim is there.
It isn't there, there was no fraud, no malfeasance, sure there was a bit of partisanship and definitely there were efforts to present the data in the best light they could, but nothing that even approached fraud.

People need to give this one up as another nontroversy because that is what it is.

I imagine the people who engineered the theft are extremely pleased with the results though. They played this hand perfectly, releasing the information with plenty of time to verify it's authenticity before Copenhagen. But not with enough time for any detailed review by the authorities into whether it contained improprieties. This has succeeded better than they thought it would I am sure.

88 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:35:10pm

sleepytime. night, all

89 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:35:10pm

Oops, just did a run on post.

90 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:35:25pm

re: #84 Gus 802

Those are the member parties of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group which is sponsering an Alternative Climate Conference which is also sponsored by the Danish People's Party. I had a link somewhere. They're getting several American anti-AGW notables to speak at the event.

Thank you for your answer, Gus.

91 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:36:21pm

re: #77 Bagua

Canada is not a member of OPEC. If they had a reason to lie, it would be different.

The OPEC members are allowed to sell (officially) a percentage of the OPEC limit based proportionately on the size of their reserves. This gives each member an incentive to lie in favour of inflating the size of their reserves.

O wow, there's almost no way they aren't lying then.

92 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:36:44pm

re: #90 Walter L. Newton

Thank you for your answer, Gus.

More here:

[Link: www.desmogblog.com...]

93 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:36:54pm

re: #86 cliffster

Mark Cuban the wrestler.

Put his rich ass through the door

He deserves it. After he financed Redacted his name became 'mud' to me.

94 SpaceJesus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:37:08pm

re: #72 Sharmuta

What's to understand? Theo-cons like other religious fundamentalists.

you'd have a hard time telling that judging from all the anti-muslim bigotry that comes out of the hard right, not to mention how they also love to demonize their enemies as famous communists.

somebody needs to install a special meter on all the gas pumps in the south that shows how much money per gallon goes to "them thar godless moslems in the middle east". maybe then conservatives will get on board with alternative energy initiatives.

95 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:38:16pm

re: #91 McSpiff

O wow, there's almost no way they aren't lying then.

Right, would leave everyone in a shock and panic when the wells started to run dry. Very bullish for the oil price. The Saudis, et. al. profit more because they get a higher price for the same quantity.

96 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:38:28pm

re: #83 ludwigvanquixote

Here is a short list of AGW supporters.

NASA
NOAA
The American Physical Society
The National Academy of Science
The American Geophysical Union
The Royal Society (Britain)
Académie des sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Hmmm...

I could go on... I hope though that in this debate looking at this list of organizations, vs. the likes of Exxon and politicians and the Saudis on the other side, I like looking at medical organizations vs. a list of tobacco companies.

Yep. And now one of the CEI numbnuts is suing NASA under the FOIA.

They don't even trust NASA.

97 ghazidor  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:38:28pm

re: #60 ludwigvanquixote

Welcome back LVQ nice to see you amongst the lizard herd again. I missed you when trying to reply to the deniers at the end of all the day+ old climate threads.

98 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:39:11pm

re: #94 SpaceJesus

you'd have a hard time telling that judging from all the anti-muslim bigotry that comes out of the hard right, not to mention how they also love to demonize their enemies as famous communists.

somebody needs to install a special meter on all the gas pumps in the south that shows how much money per gallon goes to "them thar godless moslems in the middle east". maybe then conservatives will get on board with alternative energy initiatives.

They get it, their solution is just "Drill Baby Drill". I don't think I need to explain the flaws in this, but there it is.

99 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:41:20pm

re: #72 Sharmuta

What's to understand? Theo-cons like other religious fundamentalists.

Dinesh D'Souza thinks they should be "allies."

100 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:42:03pm

re: #98 McSpiff

They get it, their solution is just "Drill Baby Drill". I don't think I need to explain the flaws in this, but there it is.

Not so fast, "their" solution is also a massive deployment of nuclear electrical generation.

The alternatives are mostly not ready for prime time, though they do play a fractional role.

101 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:44:20pm

re: #100 Bagua

Not so fast, "their" solution is also a massive deployment of nuclear electrical generation.

The alternatives are mostly not ready for prime time, though they do play a fractional role.

O I agree with the use of nuclear, don't get me wrong. I simply meant for the specific case of "what do we put into the cars we currently have". From what I saw during the campaign, a lot of the right/hard right (However you choose to split that group) wanted to fill their tanks with US gas.

102 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:45:55pm

re: #96 Gus 802

Yep. And now one of the CEI numbnuts is suing NASA under the FOIA.

They don't even trust NASA.

That's just utter smoke and mirrors. Most of them could not personally do algebra let alone analyze data. Of course the data is not hidden. It is written up extensively in the journals. There are numerous places where the raw data is even available on the web from satellite and ground observation posts.

It is not hard to find at all.

re: #97 ausador

Welcome back LVQ nice to see you amongst the lizard herd again. I missed you when trying to reply to the deniers at the end of all the day+ old climate threads.

It's good to be back, though honestly, getting in the lab and doing some science was likely much better for my mental state then dealing with morons.

103 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:46:52pm

re: #101 McSpiff

Agreed. Domestic exploration would also push down the Oil price in the short term. Either way I believe the Saudis et. al. will sell every last drop of theirs, my preference is that they do so at a price that will not leave them much money for weapons and cause a massive wealth transfer to escalate.

104 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:47:33pm

re: #101 McSpiff

O I agree with the use of nuclear, don't get me wrong. I simply meant for the specific case of "what do we put into the cars we currently have". From what I saw during the campaign, a lot of the right/hard right (However you choose to split that group) wanted to fill their tanks with US gas.

That last is not such a bad idea. I favor using more domestic supplies, as long as its understood that we are going to transitioning away from oil entirely going forwards.

105 SpaceJesus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:48:00pm

re: #100 Bagua

Not so fast, "their" solution is also a massive deployment of nuclear electrical generation.

The alternatives are mostly not ready for prime time, though they do play a fractional role.


the average conservative only cares when the price of gas gets astronomical. if the price is ok, then alternative energy is a non-issue with them.

106 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:48:53pm

re: #103 Bagua

Agreed. Domestic exploration would also push down the Oil price in the short term. Either way I believe the Saudis et. al. will sell every last drop of theirs, my preference is that they do so at a price that will not leave them much money for weapons and cause a massive wealth transfer to escalate.

So you say Drill Here, Drill Now?

107 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:49:57pm

re: #100 Bagua

Not so fast, "their" solution is also a massive deployment of nuclear electrical generation.

The alternatives are mostly not ready for prime time, though they do play a fractional role.

Sorry for the double post (really need to finish thinking before I hit post...)

I think nuclear is a solution to get off of CO2 producing activities like burning coal for power generation, etc. And if that's what we want to focus on (I know we disagree over this point, and it's really not the central issue of my post) then we should be clear. But trying to repaint AGW as reducing dependence on foreign oil to get right-wingers on board with Climate Change seems to me likely to backfire. Because an obvious and likely cheaper (in the short term at least) alternative is increased domestic supplies and what I'd consider near-domestic (i.e Canada and other western, allied nations). Seems to me that this strategy could cause those campaigning for Climate Change to win the battle but ultimately lose the war.

108 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:51:11pm

re: #107 McSpiff

Sorry for the double post (really need to finish thinking before I hit post...)

I think nuclear is a solution to get off of CO2 producing activities like burning coal for power generation, etc. And if that's what we want to focus on (I know we disagree over this point, and it's really not the central issue of my post) then we should be clear. But trying to repaint AGW as reducing dependence on foreign oil to get right-wingers on board with Climate Change seems to me likely to backfire. Because an obvious and likely cheaper (in the short term at least) alternative is increased domestic supplies and what I'd consider near-domestic (i.e Canada and other western, allied nations). Seems to me that this strategy could cause those campaigning for Climate Change to win the battle but ultimately lose the war.

My thoughts exactly.

109 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:51:24pm

Damn, this is getting really hard now. On one hand, we have a bunch of anti-capitalist asswipes on a money grab, and on the other hand we have a bunch of anti-capitalist assswipes on a money grab.

Here's an idea: How about we transform our energy production in a prudent fashion without all the hysteria from both sides, and do so in a way that both enhances our standard of living and the environment?

Believe me, nothing would make me more pleased than to see the Kingdom reduced to irrelevancy. I feel the same way currently however about those spewing garbage like this:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

110 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:51:52pm

The Discovery Institute being on the side of the deniers is what made me take a second look at the issue. If being on the side of Saudi Arabia doesn't convince people to take another look, nothing will.

111 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:52:37pm

re: #109 borgcube

Damn, this is getting really hard now. On one hand, we have a bunch of anti-capitalist asswipes on a money grab, and on the other hand we have a bunch of anti-capitalist assswipes on a money grab.

Here's an idea: How about we transform our energy production in a prudent fashion without all the hysteria from both sides, and do so in a way that both enhances our standard of living and the environment?

Believe me, nothing would make me more pleased than to see the Kingdom reduced to irrelevancy. I feel the same way currently however about those spewing garbage like this:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

Agreed.

112 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:52:52pm

re: #104 Dark_Falcon

That last is not such a bad idea. I favor using more domestic supplies, as long as its understood that we are going to transitioning away from oil entirely going forwards.


My position has always been that we would use less Oil and Coal in the long run as the atmosphere of prosperity would nurture development of viable alternatives. The rub is that the Saudis and Co. would not get wealthier.

In the longer term, as the nuclear and alternatives came online we could comfortable switch, leaving much Oil and Coal in the ground.

So yes, drill here now as part of a larger strategy to both bankrupt the Saudis and other hostile nations and to lead to sensible alternatives that would allow us the luxury of increasing alternatives.

113 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:53:27pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

The Discovery Institute being on the side of the deniers is what made me take a second look at the issue. If being on the side of Saudi Arabia doesn't convince people to take another look, nothing will.

Forgot to add them to my list. The DI also has several writers working against AGW appearing on a lot of UK newspapers.

114 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:54:33pm

re: #109 borgcube

Here's an idea: How about we transform our energy production in a prudent fashion without all the hysteria from both sides, and do so in a way that both enhances our standard of living and the environment?

What's your plan for that?

115 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:54:56pm

re: #111 Dark_Falcon

Agreed.

Jesus Cristo, did you read some of that shit editorial? Insane. Tell me that's not faith based alarmist gobbledygook.

116 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:55:08pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

The Discovery Institute being on the side of the deniers is what made me take a second look at the issue. If being on the side of Saudi Arabia doesn't convince people to take another look, nothing will.

The Discovery of Global Warming

A GOOD PLACE TO START is the Summary of the history of climate change science.

117 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:56:21pm
118 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:56:28pm

re: #112 Bagua

One of the problems with the "drill here drill now" idea is that the oil refining companies find it much easier with things as they are then starting up offshore oil drilling projects. The supply is there now and getting it from OPEC and non-OPEC nations works for them.

119 freetoken  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:56:30pm

I was watching the sessions live from Denmark last night and sort of live-blogging it here (along with a couple of others; btw, here is the link to the vids: [Link: www1.cop15.meta-fusion.com...] ).

When the Saudi delegate droned on (and on) about not only "climategate" but how any investigation led by the IPCC into the matter couldn't be trusted, I wondered how many people caught the utter hypocrisy of it all.

Not only is the KSA one of the most secretive governments in the world, it absolutely refuses to let outside agencies analyze their petroleum resources (or any part of their country).

And here they were complaining about not trusting the UN to investigate because of purported lack of openness.

So far they win the prize (by a mile) at this conference for the bald-face-ness of their public statements

120 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:56:34pm

re: #107 McSpiff

Sorry for the double post (really need to finish thinking before I hit post...)

I think nuclear is a solution to get off of CO2 producing activities like burning coal for power generation, etc. And if that's what we want to focus on (I know we disagree over this point, and it's really not the central issue of my post) then we should be clear. But trying to repaint AGW as reducing dependence on foreign oil to get right-wingers on board with Climate Change seems to me likely to backfire. Because an obvious and likely cheaper (in the short term at least) alternative is increased domestic supplies and what I'd consider near-domestic (i.e Canada and other western, allied nations). Seems to me that this strategy could cause those campaigning for Climate Change to win the battle but ultimately lose the war.

I see your point. They are separate issues. However, they could in part share a common goal of opposing the enrichment of OPEC by collapsing the Oil price in the short term. In the medium term as the nuclear plants came on line the net result would be a massive reduction in the amount of Oil used, so it becomes a win for either agenda: A win win.

121 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:56:54pm

re: #109 borgcube

There is very little hysteria on the AGW side. Just increasing irritation with anti-science types.

AGW, if unchecked, will have catastrophic effects. That's not hysterics, that's sober fact. However, I fully believe we can stop it without draconian measures. But it starts with willing participation, with people supporting the scientists.

One of the most important ways to do that is coming up in 2010:

Find out your representatives position on global warming. Find out what plan of action they support. Consider that strongly when you vote.

122 bosforus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:56:58pm

re: #117 LudwigVanQuixote

WTF?

123 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:58:07pm

Scientists say paper battery could be in the works

Ordinary paper could one day be used as a lightweight battery to power the devices that are now enabling the printed word to be eclipsed by e-mail, e-books and online news.

Scientists at Stanford University in California reported on Monday they have successfully turned paper coated with ink made of silver and carbon nanomaterials into a "paper battery" that holds promise for new types of lightweight, high-performance energy storage.

The same feature that helps ink adhere to paper allows it to hold onto the single-walled carbon nanotubes and silver nanowire films. Earlier research found that silicon nanowires could be used to make batteries 10 times as powerful as lithium-ion batteries now used to power devices such as laplop computers.

124 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:58:40pm

re: #114 recusancy

What's your plan for that?

A new nuclear power plant online each and every month for the next ten years for starters with an executive order from Obama making Yucca Mountain operational for handling nuclear waste immediately. Shoot to kill orders for any hippies getting in the way.

125 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 10:59:22pm

re: #124 borgcube

How much will that cost? Please give a real answer. It's rather important.

126 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:00:09pm

re: #121 Obdicut

There is very little hysteria on the AGW side. Just increasing irritation with anti-science types.

AGW, if unchecked, will have catastrophic effects. That's not hysterics, that's sober fact. However, I fully believe we can stop it without draconian measures. But it starts with willing participation, with people supporting the scientists.

One of the most important ways to do that is coming up in 2010:

Find out your representatives position on global warming. Find out what plan of action they support. Consider that strongly when you vote.

Bullshit. We have only 14 days to save the planet isn't hysteria to you?

127 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:00:12pm

re: #115 borgcube

Jesus Cristo, did you read some of that shit editorial? Insane. Tell me that's not faith based alarmist gobbledygook.

I was agreeing with you, not the article.

128 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:01:11pm

re: #124 borgcube

A new nuclear power plant online each and every month for the next ten years for starters with an executive order from Obama making Yucca Mountain operational for handling nuclear waste immediately. Shoot to kill orders for any hippies getting in the way.

Even if you wanted to build a nuke plant every month a) that would be overkill b) you still have to go through the NRC and c) it's impossible to build a nuke plant in 30 days let alone allowing the concrete to set which is typically about 28 days alone.

129 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:01:17pm

re: #126 borgcube

Bullshit. We have only 14 days to save the planet isn't hysteria to you?

Well... Copenhagen is kind of important.

130 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:02:12pm

DO NOT panic about the end of the world unless the Vikings win the Superbowl.

131 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:02:47pm

re: #126 borgcube

Bullshit. We have only 14 days to save the planet isn't hysteria to you?

That's not what it says. The Conference will last fourteen days. They're saying that it's of critical importance. I happen to think they're wrong, but it's obviously a hugely, hugely important meeting.

I think that we're going to rise to meet the challenge of AGW. I think government and private enterprise are going to be able to combat it, and to help us adapt and ameliorate. It's not going to be easy, and an actual result from Copenhagen would be hugely important.

132 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:02:51pm

re: #128 Gus 802

Even if you wanted to build a nuke plant every month a) that would be overkill b) you still have to go through the NRC and c) it's impossible to build a nuke plant in 30 days let alone allowing the concrete to set which is typically about 28 days alone.

And uranium is a finite, scarce resource as well. I think people forget that.

133 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:03:22pm

re: #118 Gus 802

One of the problems with the "drill here drill now" idea is that the oil refining companies find it much easier with things as they are then starting up offshore oil drilling projects. The supply is there now and getting it from OPEC and non-OPEC nations works for them.

No, they will buy the cheapest supply available, depending on whether they have contracts, own the production or just pay spot at Cushing.

134 ghazidor  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:03:27pm

re: #102 ludwigvanquixote

Ok, I updinged that but felt conflicted about it. Please as a man of science and reason can you find it within you to limit your responses to not include the fatuous ad hominems unless necessary?

This blog contains a lower percentage of morons within it's membership than any I have been associated with in quite a few years. While we may not all be Mensa material I find the level of intelligence here to be quite far above average for an internet comment section.

To wrap this up in an old homily...you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Make of it what you will...

135 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:03:51pm

re: #130 Sharmuta

DO NOT panic about the end of the world unless the Vikings win the Superbowl.

That may happen. Bret Farve is having a banner year.

136 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:04:01pm

re: #132 recusancy

And uranium is a finite, scarce resource as well. I think people forget that.

Yep. Although they are working on recycled material. Right now the waste is being stored on site because of Yucca Mt. and the DoE is paying for the on site storage to the plant operators.

137 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:04:14pm

re: #134 ausador


To wrap this up in an old homily...you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Make of it what you will...

I feel the need to tell you that vinegar actually works better for catching flies, especially balsamic.

138 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:04:16pm

re: #125 Obdicut

How much will that cost? Please give a real answer. It's rather important.

Whatever it costs. Give 100% tax exemptions to every company involved. No taxes for the cost of materials, labor, the works.

Slim down the entire patrolling of the ME oil fields and take that portion of the military budget for seed money to be paid back from these companies once the plants are operational and are generating revenue.

Or, we can go along with Copenhagen and be told that we have to pony up our future wealth and standard of living to bail out every dysfunctional third world shithole on the planet and still not get the job done.

139 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:05:04pm

re: #127 Dark_Falcon

I was agreeing with you, not the article.

I know. I was just wondering if you read some of that.

140 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:06:21pm

re: #128 Gus 802

Even if you wanted to build a nuke plant every month a) that would be overkill b) you still have to go through the NRC and c) it's impossible to build a nuke plant in 30 days let alone allowing the concrete to set which is typically about 28 days alone.

Fuck the NRC. They go bye bye since the end of the world is upon us. This is the greatest threat to the history of mankind. Chop chop.

141 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:06:25pm

re: #133 Bagua

No, they will buy the cheapest supply available, depending on whether they have contracts, own the production or just pay spot at Cushing.

Why should they bother if the supply is already there. They will buy whatever the market is getting. Exxon/Mobil could care less about "drill here drill now."

142 simoom  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:06:25pm

Sheesh -- looks like Congressman Issa is on board too:

[Link: www.politico.com...]

And back in Washington, a senior House Republican took the EPA to task for declaring that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health without investigating the e-mail scandal first.

"Why the rush? What's to hide?" California Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked in a statement.

'Makes you wonder though... if the GoP still controlled congress would the CRU hacking get some sort of congressional inquiry (piling on to try and derail Copenhagen)?

143 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:06:41pm

re: #128 Gus 802

Even if you wanted to build a nuke plant every month a) that would be overkill b) you still have to go through the NRC and c) it's impossible to build a nuke plant in 30 days let alone allowing the concrete to set which is typically about 28 days alone.

Off course it takes years. A major help would be legislation streamlining the approval process as a national emergency. Simply eliminate the road blocks and we could shorten the time to deployment and the cost significantly.

144 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:07:04pm

re: #129 recusancy

Well... Copenhagen is kind of important.

For whores, limo companies, and caviar caterers, sure.

145 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:07:24pm

re: #138 borgcube

No, seriously. This is your proposal. I want an answer from you on how much it will cost. Do we have companies that can do this on this schedule? Do we have the actual workers to put it up? Do we have the materials?

Or are you just saying something you wish could happen, not a serious proposal?

146 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:08:21pm

re: #139 borgcube

I know. I was just wondering if you read some of that.

I haven't read it yet. I find stuff from the Guardian very painful to read.

147 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:08:34pm

re: #120 Bagua

I see your point. They are separate issues. However, they could in part share a common goal of opposing the enrichment of OPEC by collapsing the Oil price in the short term. In the medium term as the nuclear plants came on line the net result would be a massive reduction in the amount of Oil used, so it becomes a win for either agenda: A win win.

I think its totally safe to say they overlap. And I think we're in 100% agreement over nuclear. I just worry that the short term goal of substituting US crude for OPEC crude (which I think is totally laudable goal by the way) could potential slide into a medium or long term solution. I've seen way too many short term, temporary solutions become permanent to be too accepting of a "we'll do this first, and then get right on with that nuclear solution".

And not to sound like a peak oil nut, but eventually US/friendly crude will run out. I'd hate to see us getting caught with our pants down again(slightly loaded term I realize).

So maybe if for every new oil patch opened up I saw A) Some real progress on commercialized breeder reactors or a thorium fuel cycle in the US; and B) A plan from start to finish about how that patch will be utilized, and a firm date for shutdown and remediation I'd be more willing to work hand in hand with the "No foreign oil" folks. Nothing personal, but ultimately Climate Change folks and and Foreign Oil folks have different goals.

148 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:08:37pm

re: #143 Bagua

Off course it takes years. A major help would be legislation streamlining the approval process as a national emergency. Simply eliminate the road blocks and we could shorten the time to deployment and the cost significantly.

There is no national emergency. Last thing we need to do is streamline nuclear power plant safety.

Here's a sample of the Applicant's Design Control Document alone:

TOC Table of Contents
1 Introduction and General Description of Plant
2 Site Characteristics
3 Design of Structures, Components, Equipment and Systems
4 Reactor
5 Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
6 Engineered Safety Features
7 Instrumentation and Control Systems
8 Electric Power
9 Auxiliary Systems
10 Steam and Power Conversion System
11 Radioactive Waste Management
12 Radiation Protection
13 Conduct of Operations
14 Initial Test Program
15 Accident and Analysis
16 Technical Specifications
17 Quality Assurance
18 Human Factors Engineering
19 Response to Severe Accident Policy Statement
20 Question and Response Guide
21 Engineering Drawings

[Link: www.nrc.gov...]

149 freetoken  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:10:26pm

re: #126 borgcube

Bullshit. We have only 14 days to save the planet isn't hysteria to you?

That's more a statement about diplomacy and negotiation rather than AGW.

Point being, getting together this number of leaders from all over the world to agree to treaties on this subject may not happen again anytime soon, or ever.

It is intentional hard-sell tactics by the UNFCCC and others to put pressure on national delegates to compromise.

150 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:10:45pm

re: #148 Gus 802

[Link: www.nrc.gov...]

Can't you just go to IKEA and get a nuclear power plant set with directions?

///

151 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:11:10pm

re: #141 Gus 802

Why should they bother if the supply is already there. They will buy whatever the market is getting. Exxon/Mobil could care less about "drill here drill now."

Because they make a higher profit when they pay less for the Crude Oil. Even under contract the price is generally partly pegged to the spot WTI.

Then of course if they own the production, and it doesn't need to float across the ocean their profit is much higher.

152 Bob Dillon  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:14:44pm

There is another system ...

Coming on-line in 2016

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

and others ...

Space-based solar power

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

153 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:15:27pm

re: #147 McSpiff

Sigh doing it again, but...

Another issue is increasing domestic supplies makes companies like Exxon, Shell, etc more profitable and ultimately more powerful. And since they don't build nuclear power plants(or other alternative forms of energy as far as I know) I suspect they'll do the same thing every other industry has when being eclipsed: Lobby. Lobby hard. They're already very good at it. And do everything they can to delay nuclear to keep us reliant on Crude. It might be US crude, but the green house gases it releases are ultimately the same problem (if you accept AGW, which I do).

154 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:15:41pm

re: #151 Bagua

Because they make a higher profit when they pay less for the Crude Oil. Even under contract the price is generally partly pegged to the spot WTI.

Then of course if they own the production, and it doesn't need to float across the ocean their profit is much higher.

Yeah, but if it's domestic then you dealing with domestic recovery regulations; labor requirements; EPA; OSHA; etc. And that's after the EIS. That would mean someone would have to get the start up costs for any drilling projects and it wouldn't be the oil companies. Which means you have to hire from within the states.

155 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:15:46pm

re: #147 McSpiff

I think its totally safe to say they overlap. And I think we're in 100% agreement over nuclear. I just worry that the short term goal of substituting US crude for OPEC crude (which I think is totally laudable goal by the way) could potential slide into a medium or long term solution. I've seen way too many short term, temporary solutions become permanent to be too accepting of a "we'll do this first, and then get right on with that nuclear solution".

And not to sound like a peak oil nut, but eventually US/friendly crude will run out. I'd hate to see us getting caught with our pants down again(slightly loaded term I realize).

So maybe if for every new oil patch opened up I saw A) Some real progress on commercialized breeder reactors or a thorium fuel cycle in the US; and B) A plan from start to finish about how that patch will be utilized, and a firm date for shutdown and remediation I'd be more willing to work hand in hand with the "No foreign oil" folks. Nothing personal, but ultimately Climate Change folks and and Foreign Oil folks have different goals.

Agreed. My proposal is that it would have a net result in reduction of the total Crude Oil and Coal used on a global basis. But only if that was also the intention as obviously more production could also mean larger net consumption.

I would go as far as to support a tariff on foreign Crude proportional to increases in domestic production. The Oil price would collapse.

156 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:16:06pm

I hate to link to the WaPo, but this is interesting:

Dutch defense against climate change: Adapt

Although almost everyone agrees that setting lower emission targets will be vital at the two-week summit in Copenhagen, a growing chorus of experts now argues that it might already be too late to prevent temperatures from rising for the next 50 to 100 years. Finding ways for nations to live with climate change could be the more pressing challenge.

[snip]

In Rotterdam, city officials opted to invest in new parks, city squares and parking garages now under construction that effectively double as Rotterdam's drainage system, filling with water during heavy floods to keep streets, buildings and homes above water. In east Amsterdam, one of three new floating communities going up across Holland looks like an aquatic suburbia. The homes are built on floating platforms of reinforced concrete and literally rise with floodwaters, offering a glimpse into how lifestyles may change as costal areas adapt.

Some interesting food for thought, because there are real issues such as these we will need to confront as a country.

157 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:17:01pm

re: #153 McSpiff

Sigh doing it again, but...

Another issue is increasing domestic supplies makes companies like Exxon, Shell, etc more profitable and ultimately more powerful. And since they don't build nuclear power plants(or other alternative forms of energy as far as I know) I suspect they'll do the same thing every other industry has when being eclipsed: Lobby. Lobby hard. They're already very good at it. And do everything they can to delay nuclear to keep us reliant on Crude. It might be US crude, but the green house gases it releases are ultimately the same problem (if you accept AGW, which I do).

You're right though. Oil companies don't want nuclear powered power plants and neither do the coal companies.

158 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:18:13pm

re: #148 Gus 802

By "streamline" I don't mean eliminate any safety measure, rather, I mean eliminating the ability of the various groups to endlessly sue, protest and make the building of new plants uneconomical and far too long.

159 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:18:54pm

re: #158 Bagua

My #153 should have been a reply to you.

160 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:19:14pm

re: #145 Obdicut

No, seriously. This is your proposal. I want an answer from you on how much it will cost. Do we have companies that can do this on this schedule? Do we have the actual workers to put it up? Do we have the materials?

Or are you just saying something you wish could happen, not a serious proposal?

What is your major fucking malfuckingfunction? You always do this. That's not the point.

It's simple:
1) Nuclear power is a proven technology. And it's very clean.
2) It's ready to go unlike windmills/hydrogen/cold fusion/solar/taking my money to give to fucking Bangladesh and anything else that's all talk and no action in Copenhagen. Too bad the people in Denmark for this charade are also some of the biggest obstructionists for nuclear power. If they had kept their mouths shut for the last 30 years on the subject, we might not be discussing this now.

My point is not invalid because I cannot give you an exact or even ballpark cost. But this is for sure, it's a hell of a lot more feasible than the bullshit that will be spewing from Denmark this week. All we will hear are pie in the sky proposals out of Copenhagen laced with fear so great that no matter what they say the costs will be, that we'll have to fork it over. Your focus should be there.

161 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:19:59pm

re: #149 freetoken

That's more a statement about diplomacy and negotiation rather than AGW.

Point being, getting together this number of leaders from all over the world to agree to treaties on this subject may not happen again anytime soon, or ever.

It is intentional hard-sell tactics by the UNFCCC and others to put pressure on national delegates to compromise.

Like I said. Bullshit.

162 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:20:17pm

re: #158 Bagua

By "streamline" I don't mean eliminate any safety measure, rather, I mean eliminating the ability of the various groups to endlessly sue, protest and make the building of new plants uneconomical and far too long.

I can agree with that. But you do realize that limiting the ability for people or groups to sue is impossible. I don't know the Constitutional implications. Perhaps you can set limitations but all you would have to do is start up another lawsuit under a different group.

163 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:20:30pm

re: #153 McSpiff

Sigh doing it again, but...

Another issue is increasing domestic supplies makes companies like Exxon, Shell, etc more profitable and ultimately more powerful. And since they don't build nuclear power plants(or other alternative forms of energy as far as I know) I suspect they'll do the same thing every other industry has when being eclipsed: Lobby. Lobby hard. They're already very good at it. And do everything they can to delay nuclear to keep us reliant on Crude. It might be US crude, but the green house gases it releases are ultimately the same problem (if you accept AGW, which I do).

They can lobby until the cows come home, as they do, but ultimately it is the voters who chose the legislators who make the decisions.

164 freetoken  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:21:34pm

My opinion: forget about capping oil, folks. It's too important, and the peak-oilers will be right sooner or later anyway.

The big, bad, ugly beast in the room is the solid fuels, sometimes labeled "coal" but encompassing a wide range of quality and composition.

I concur with Dr. Hansen on this - use all the oil (real crude and condensate) that you can find, and all the natural gas you can find, as long as you outlaw the use of the solid fuels.

Crouching in the corner, as oil production struggles to keep up with demand, is the coal-to-liquids (CTL) strategy, and that will look especially attractive to the US, China, and a few of the other big players. Using underground coal gasification (UCG) you don't even have to mine the stuff.

The potential to load the atmosphere with CO2 from the solids is thus far far greater than that found in the usual oil and gas resources.

165 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:23:34pm

re: #163 Bagua

They can lobby until the cows come home, as they do, but ultimately it is the voters who chose the legislators who make the decisions.

But lobbying works. Marketing works. See: half of this country right now. Global Warming skepticism has grown amongst the public in the last few years. It's not because of some climate gate thing. It's because of partisanship and partisan loyalties and lobbying money.

166 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:23:36pm

re: #162 Gus 802

I can agree with that. But you do realize that limiting the ability for people or groups to sue is impossible. I don't know the Constitutional implications. Perhaps you can set limitations but all you would have to do is start up another lawsuit under a different group.

I don't know the legalities well enough to comment. But I do know the legislative branch can make laws and Federal law can overrule state laws.

167 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:23:50pm

re: #161 borgcube

Like I said. Bullshit.

In politics, pressure is exerted to achieve goals!

168 Gus  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:24:23pm

re: #166 Bagua

I don't know the legalities well enough to comment. But I do know the legislative branch can make laws and Federal law can overrule state laws.

They should do it then.

Take a look at this graph.

Image: File:CO2%26NPPs.png

169 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:26:12pm

re: #165 recusancy

But lobbying works. Marketing works. See: half of this country right now. Global Warming skepticism has grown amongst the public in the last few years. It's not because of some climate gate thing. It's because of partisanship and partisan loyalties and lobbying money.

Of course lobbying has influence, however it is not the only influence. Voters elect the legislators and they make the laws. Voters have the ultimate power when they choose to exercise it.

170 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:26:29pm

re: #163 Bagua

They can lobby until the cows come home, as they do, but ultimately it is the voters who chose the legislators who make the decisions.

Err, not to sound like an ass or anything...

But that sounds a little naive here. We're talking about the most profitable companies in the world, that between coal and oil employ a significant chunk of the US workforce. And switching to US Crude/Coal will only make this more true. So if we sell people on the idea that we're only switching to stop funding people who hate us (which is a very reasonable argument I fully admit), and we do that... and we employ a bunch of people by doing that(I'm going to argue more than nuclear/alternatives)... what reason would there be to switch to nuclear again, discounting AGW?

171 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:27:11pm

re: #146 Dark_Falcon

I haven't read it yet. I find stuff from the Guardian very painful to read.

I know. But you've got to read this thing. It's the communist manifesto meets Prius commercial.

172 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:27:29pm

re: #168 Gus 802

Agreed.

173 recusancy  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:28:00pm

re: #169 Bagua

Of course lobbying has influence, however it is not the only influence. Voters elect the legislators and they make the laws. Voters have the ultimate power when they choose to exercise it.

And voters are easily swayed by marketing and what their leaders, that they have partisan loyalties and trust in, say. Not everybody is up all night discussing it on blogs and reading everything they can about it.

174 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:28:54pm

re: #160 borgcube

But this is for sure, it's a hell of a lot more feasible than the bullshit that will be spewing from Denmark this week. .

How can you say it's more feasible when you have absolutely no clue how feasible it is?

175 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:29:27pm

re: #174 Obdicut

How can you say it's more feasible when you have absolutely no clue how feasible it is?


UNCLE!!!

176 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:30:30pm

re: #103 Bagua

Agreed. Domestic exploration would also push down the Oil price in the short term. Either way I believe the Saudis et. al. will sell every last drop of theirs, my preference is that they do so at a price that will not leave them much money for weapons and cause a massive wealth transfer to escalate.

I thought oil was commoditized to the point where our drilling wouldn't impact price?

177 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:31:15pm

re: #175 borgcube

UNCLE!!!


re: #175 borgcube

UNCLE!!!

That's you crying uncle because you can't answer the question. :-)

178 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:31:19pm

re: #170 McSpiff

Err, not to sound like an ass or anything...

But that sounds a little naive here. We're talking about the most profitable companies in the world, that between coal and oil employ a significant chunk of the US workforce. And switching to US Crude/Coal will only make this more true. So if we sell people on the idea that we're only switching to stop funding people who hate us (which is a very reasonable argument I fully admit), and we do that... and we employ a bunch of people by doing that(I'm going to argue more than nuclear/alternatives)... what reason would there be to switch to nuclear again, discounting AGW?

Of course the companies have power, they are a major part of the economy. But there is no greater power than the vote. And mind you that I am proposing simultaneous rapid increase in deploying new nuclear plants. The energy lobby would not be consulted, they would be informed of the decision.

The energy companies have influence, but they can't roll back time.

179 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:32:20pm

re: #175 borgcube

UNCLE!!!

Here's a good article about the challenges of nuclear power.

I fully support nuclear power, by the way. It's just not, in any way, shape, or form, a silver bullet, and Copenhagen is hugely important. It really, really is.

Good Futurepundit selection of articles on nuclear power

180 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:33:23pm

re: #176 WindUpBird

I thought oil was commoditized to the point where our drilling wouldn't impact price?

Not at all, the mere announcement of domestic exploration would cause an immediate drop in price. The Oil price fluctuates wildly, often on mere rumour.

181 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:33:23pm

re: #178 Bagua

Of course the companies have power, they are a major part of the economy. But there is no greater power than the vote. And mind you that I am proposing simultaneous rapid increase in deploying new nuclear plants. The energy lobby would not be consulted, they would be informed of the decision.

The energy companies have influence, but they can't roll back time.

Wait, so you think we can just make energy companies roll over? I'm all for nuclear power (apparently liberals aren't supposed to be for nuclear power? Not the liberals I know) but the energy lobby is powerful stuff.

182 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:36:22pm

re: #180 Bagua

Not at all, the mere announcement of domestic exploration would cause an immediate drop in price. The Oil price fluctuates wildly, often on mere rumour.

A consistent drop in price for years? Enough to not just make the commodities market wobble? I'm afraid I need more than your word on that. ;-) How much new oil do we have to get out of the ground before it becomes more than a drop in the bucket to the world oil production?

Oil production by country. We produce a lot, but we'd have to produce a LOT MORE and a lot more very quickly for it to become a major actor on oil prices, I'd imagine.

183 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:36:31pm

re: #178 Bagua

Of course the companies have power, they are a major part of the economy. But there is no greater power than the vote. And mind you that I am proposing simultaneous rapid increase in deploying new nuclear plants. The energy lobby would not be consulted, they would be informed of the decision.

The energy companies have influence, but they can't roll back time.

I guess ultimately my question is, how do you propose we convince voters for the need to rapidly deploy new nuclear power plants? To me it either involves peak Oil/Crude or AGW. Otherwise, what's the point? Assuming US/Friendly nations can supply the US's energy needs with either Nuclear or Conventional fuel, and history shows people are much more willing to accept new oil fields and oil plants than having a nuclear reactor anywhere near them, whats the convincing argument? Economically Conventional might just make more sense as well, because as you stated in #180 domestic exploration will drive the price even lower.

184 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:38:12pm

re: #181 WindUpBird

Wait, so you think we can just make energy companies roll over? I'm all for nuclear power (apparently liberals aren't supposed to be for nuclear power? Not the liberals I know) but the energy lobby is powerful stuff.

Of course, they want to make money, not go to prison or pay massive fines. They lobby on behalf of their industries, they don't own the vote unless that vote is corrupt.

185 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:40:38pm

re: #177 WindUpBird

That's you crying uncle because you can't answer the question. :-)

No, it's because his question is irrelevant on so many points. For one, he offers nothing as to the costs of the Copenhagen farce, and if he or you are honest, you know will be so far more expensive than nuclear power plants dotting the USA.

At least there's an idea of what it costs to put up a nuclear power plant and besides that, it makes money after it's up and running. Imagine that.

Out of Copenhagen, we'll been told that we have to pay something, lower our standard of living, but don't know how much or how low, for how long, or even what the technology and/or money will be used for. Given that not just one, but that 192 nations and the UN are involved, my money is that 100 new nuclear power plants up and running in the US will be cheaper than installing a few thousand windmills in Bangladesh after all the "administrative" costs are paid. Oh, and those will not generate much energy or money for that matter.

186 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:40:48pm

re: #183 McSpiff

I guess ultimately my question is, how do you propose we convince voters for the need to rapidly deploy new nuclear power plants? To me it either involves peak Oil/Crude or AGW. Otherwise, what's the point? Assuming US/Friendly nations can supply the US's energy needs with either Nuclear or Conventional fuel, and history shows people are much more willing to accept new oil fields and oil plants than having a nuclear reactor anywhere near them, whats the convincing argument? Economically Conventional might just make more sense as well, because as you stated in #180 domestic exploration will drive the price even lower.

A single nuclear power plant, if the internet is to believed, costs 5-10 billion to construct, and billions more for associated costs.

And yeah, people are afraid of nuclear power. If Obama were to go full nuclear (heh) the wingnuts would just invoke all the China Syndrome/Chernobyl/3 Mile Island paranoia to hold up the works. We're all pretty much on the same wavelength here, but we're unusual.

187 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:42:27pm

re: #182 WindUpBird

A consistent drop in price for years? Enough to not just make the commodities market wobble? I'm afraid I need more than your word on that. ;-) How much new oil do we have to get out of the ground before it becomes more than a drop in the bucket to the world oil production?

Oil production by country. We produce a lot, but we'd have to produce a LOT MORE and a lot more very quickly for it to become a major actor on oil prices, I'd imagine.

You don't have to take my word for it, follow the price of Crude Oil and look at it historically, correspond the price action with news events that relate to supply and demand and actual changes in supply and demand. Just following OPEC announcements will more than convince one that the price is highly malleable.

It would take very little to bring back $37/bbl or lower.

188 ghazidor  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:42:37pm

re: #148 Gus 802

As most likely the only person here who has actually worked on the construction of a nuclear power plant (crystal river) I can say that while I agree that they are complicated to the nth degree because of all the safety and back-up systems they are no more difficult to actually build than your average petroleum refinery or hospital.

The problem lies in the direct on-site government oversight and the massive delays involved in the incompetant federal employees documenting and testing every stage of construction. You've doubtless heard the old saying that "those that can't do, teach." Well I can testify that those that that can't do also inspect and regulate.

When you have to stand there and explain to the inspector what a system does, how it should respond, what triggers it, what happens if it fails, etc, etc... You honestly begin to wonder what purpose the "inspector" is actually serving, it will be far worse now, the government has no experienced nuclear construction inspectors anymore.

189 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:43:56pm

re: #185 borgcube

No, it's because his question is irrelevant on so many points. For one, he offers nothing as to the costs of the Copenhagen farce, and if he or you are honest, you know will be so far more expensive than nuclear power plants dotting the USA.

At least there's an idea of what it costs to put up a nuclear power plant and besides that, it makes money after it's up and running. Imagine that.

Out of Copenhagen, we'll been told that we have to pay something, lower our standard of living, but don't know how much or how low, for how long, or even what the technology and/or money will be used for. Given that not just one, but that 192 nations and the UN are involved, my money is that 100 new nuclear power plants up and running in the US will be cheaper than installing a few thousand windmills in Bangladesh after all the "administrative" costs are paid. Oh, and those will not generate much energy or money for that matter.

You;re assuming there's some zero sum thing where Copenhagen is useless and nuke plants will be easy to sell. Copenagen is not useless, and nuclear plants will not be an easy sell. I agree with nuclear, but I don't believe it's some magic McGuffin that will solve all our problems immediately.

A hundred nuke plants would very likely cost over a trillion dollars. And more, to maintain. Just saying. The hyperbole about windmills is fun, though!

190 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:44:52pm

re: #179 Obdicut

Get government out of the way. Solved.

It really reallly is? Golly, and you want me to provide every single cost detail of my views on the subject of nuclear power?

191 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:47:12pm

re: #187 Bagua

You don't have to take my word for it, follow the price of Crude Oil and look at it historically, correspond the price action with news events that relate to supply and demand and actual changes in supply and demand. Just following OPEC announcements will more than convince one that the price is highly malleable.

It would take very little to bring back $37/bbl or lower.

I just do not believe that the announcement that we're going to drill more will HALVE the oil price for years, enough to make an impact. I roll to disbelieve it, D&D style.

192 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:49:52pm

re: #190 borgcube

Get government out of the way. Solved.

It really reallly is? Golly, and you want me to provide every single cost detail of my views on the subject of nuclear power?

You can't have it both ways. Nuclear is as safe as it is, because the people via the government demand it to be that way. Take government out of the equation, and mark my words you'll see the nuclear version of Texas City BP. It'll be cheaper and faster tho.

Its no coincidence that the most regulated industry in the country (my opinion, feel free to disagree) is also the safest.

193 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:50:23pm

re: #190 borgcube

Get government out of the way. Solved.

It really reallly is? Golly, and you want me to provide every single cost detail of my views on the subject of nuclear power?

You're selling a trillion dollars of spending on technology in places where people live, that scare them shitless. Because they all know about Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. How do you do it, politically?

Say you're not actually the Borg, or seven of 9, or Locutus. Say you're a terrestrial politician that needs to make this work. I'm honestly sympathetic to your ideas, but this has to balance political needs and wants we can't even dream of.

194 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:50:42pm

re: #186 WindUpBird

A single nuclear power plant, if the internet is to believed, costs 5-10 billion to construct, and billions more for associated costs.

And yeah, people are afraid of nuclear power. If Obama were to go full nuclear (heh) the wingnuts would just invoke all the China Syndrome/Chernobyl/3 Mile Island paranoia to hold up the works. We're all pretty much on the same wavelength here, but we're unusual.

I think any politician who comes out and says we're going nuclear with real demonstrable goals and outcomes to completely rid ourselves of foreign energy dependence (you know, the mission statement of the Department of Energy) in short order, wins in landslides.

I'd knock doors for Obama if he did that. Hell, I'd give him a blowjob.

195 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:53:40pm

re: #194 borgcube

I think any politician who comes out and says we're going nuclear with real demonstrable goals and outcomes to completely rid ourselves of foreign energy dependence (you know, the mission statement of the Department of Energy) in short order, wins in landslides.

I'd knock doors for Obama if he did that. Hell, I'd give him a blowjob.

Okay, I give you props for that last line :D But I don't believe it's a fait accompli for a politician. I think it would be a very hard sell, like health care reform is a hard sell.

If the Obama administration goes to the mat on nuke power, I predict nuclear proponents will feel the pain that health care reform proponets have felt. As all the coal and energy lobbies amass their armies in Mordor and unleash hell.

196 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:53:58pm

re: #193 WindUpBird

You're selling a trillion dollars of spending on technology in places where people live, that scare them shitless. Because they all know about Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. How do you do it, politically?

Say you're not actually the Borg, or seven of 9, or Locutus. Say you're a terrestrial politician that needs to make this work. I'm honestly sympathetic to your ideas, but this has to balance political needs and wants we can't even dream of.

Can't be much harder than telling them they're going to be underwater and DIE DIE DIE unless they do as they're told.

197 Cheechako  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:54:52pm

re: #166 Bagua

I don't know the legalities well enough to comment. But I do know the legislative branch can make laws and Federal law can overrule state laws.


As far as laws go, whatever is created by pen can be changed/eliminated by the pen. If Congress so decrees and the President agrees, a nuclear power program can be implemented that is exempt from other Federal Laws and Regulations. It just takes willpower and that is in short supply.

198 Bagua  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:55:41pm

re: #191 WindUpBird

I just do not believe that the announcement that we're going to drill more will HALVE the oil price for years, enough to make an impact. I roll to disbelieve it, D&D style.

In July 2008 when Crude hit $170 I was asked my opinion on the short term outlook, I said about $60 by the fall and about $47 within a year if there was no incident with Iran or similar. I later heard I had been described as having lost my marbles. Of course the price hit a low of just under $50 by 7 months later. There was no significant new supply that came on line.

The first wave of new plants in the US could cost as much as $3500 per KW. With economy of scale and significant legislation this could drop to $1000 or less fairly rapidly. Alternatively, Moody's has put the cost at $7,000 per KW.

Others could give a better estimate I'm sure.

The point being just the news of this coupled with open domestic production would be very bearish, and as the supply actually came online - more so.

199 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:56:02pm

re: #196 borgcube

Can't be much harder than telling them they're going to be underwater and DIE DIE DIE unless they do as they're told.

I think it actually would be! But it's all conjecture at this point.

I believe in the ability of humanity to innovate when the fear of God is put into them and they really have to. But I'd like it to not have to come to that.

200 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:56:45pm

Alright folks, its an ungodly hour here. Must get some sleep. Great discussion all.

201 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:57:39pm

re: #198 Bagua

In July 2008 when Crude hit $170 I was asked my opinion on the short term outlook, I said about $60 by the fall and about $47 within a year if there was no incident with Iran or similar. I later heard I had been described as having lost my marbles. Of course the price hit a low of just under $50 by 7 months later. There was no significant new supply that came on line.

I'm not saying the price doesn't go all over the map! I'm just saying that drilling won't knock it down to the basement for the next three Super Bowls. It's at 77 now, and if we announce that we're doing offshore drilling, or ANWR or whatever, it'll dip for a while, then something else weird will happen.

It's Vegas, baby, is what I'm saying.

202 ghazidor  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:57:57pm

No way your going to actually build an average size nuclear plant for less than 10 billion, you can forget that 5 billion fantasy. Current real world estimated cost of the three that currently are going through construction permitting are between 14 and 18 billion each.

203 borgcube  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:58:09pm

re: #195 WindUpBird

Okay, I give you props for that last line :D But I don't believe it's a fait accompli for a politician. I think it would be a very hard sell, like health care reform is a hard sell.

If the Obama administration goes to the mat on nuke power, I predict nuclear proponents will feel the pain that health care reform proponets have felt. As all the coal and energy lobbies amass their armies in Mordor and unleash hell.

All fair comments. This is why I think that this world plan to save the planet is even a bigger non-starter and nothing but hot air.

I think you would be surprised if Obama went power play nuclear on us. I think the American response would be overwhelmingly positive.

204 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:58:48pm

re: #200 McSpiff

Alright folks, its an ungodly hour here. Must get some sleep. Great discussion all.

Are you kidding me? I'm up until 5am BEING PRODUCTIVE


/actually just playing Fallout, drawing monsters and getting drunk

205 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 11:59:36pm

re: #203 borgcube

All fair comments. This is why I think that this world plan to save the planet is even a bigger non-starter and nothing but hot air.

I think you would be surprised if Obama went power play nuclear on us. I think the American response would be overwhelmingly positive.

I would be surprised and happy, honestly. I really do want to believe you're right.

206 borgcube  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:00:21am

re: #205 WindUpBird

I would be surprised and happy, honestly. I really do want to believe you're right.

Cool. Goodnight bird.

207 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:06:44am

re: #201 WindUpBird

I'm not saying the price doesn't go all over the map! I'm just saying that drilling won't knock it down to the basement for the next three Super Bowls. It's at 77 now, and if we announce that we're doing offshore drilling, or ANWR or whatever, it'll dip for a while, then something else weird will happen.

It's Vegas, baby, is what I'm saying.

Look at my post again, you will note a massive collapse in the Oil Price on no new discoveries. At drop in the current price, which is $73.55 at the moment to around $47 would not take all that long or all that much news. That is the funny thing about the Oil market.

208 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:07:14am

Midnight karaoke for me! Later, scalies!

209 tommysilver  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:17:04am

The OPEC and oil industry consensus today is that global fossil fuel demand will continue to grow unabated for several decades due to expanding BRIC economies. This bad assumption is going to be absolutely disastrous for them geo-politically and socio-economically as their primary source of revenue plummets. A country like Saudi Arabia with its massive accumulated oil wealth needs to be an energy innovator and major investor in solar, wind, nuclear, etc. but instead they send a "negotiator" to Copenhagen to talk bullshit about Climategate. Meanwhile, the greatest industrial advancement in history will occur in the next 10-20 years and just like the Internet it will likely put the United States back on top (sorry isolationists, libertarians and other assorted "patriots" who think the U.S. "Empire" is toast, and China is the next big thing). If the Middle East doesn't get with the program, it will probably become a bigger version of Somalia -- too screwed up and of no strategic importance to spill any more American blood.

210 tommysilver  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:39:03am

re: #203 borgcube

I think you would be surprised if Obama went power play nuclear on us. I think the American response would be overwhelmingly positive.

Energy independence and meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions are not possible with nuclear alone, or without nuclear. Nuclear is price competitive with coal once a plant has been built, but it takes a long time to build one. Meanwhile, putting the money required for a single nuclear plant into alternate energy R&D could potentially result in major new discoveries being made (such as how to mass produce solar panels and heat pumps with much higher energy efficiency). Bottom line, what is needed is a wholesale energy strategy that encompasses the short, medium and long term instead of insisting on a single solution such as nuclear. If Obama went power play wholesale energy strategy on us, I think the American response would be overwhelmingly positive. Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that Obama hasn't gone there yet.

211 idioma  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:52:14am

Consider that if the Russians were involved the implications remain the same. The Russian Federation has a large stake in the commodity of oil as well.

212 abolitionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:14:11am

re: #103 Bagua

Agreed. Domestic exploration would also push down the Oil price in the short term. Either way I believe the Saudis et. al. will sell every last drop of theirs, my preference is that they do so at a price that will not leave them much money for weapons and cause a massive wealth transfer to escalate.

The Saudi's oil revenue stream (or any nation's) is likely to peak a few decades after their oil production peaks and begins to decline --perhaps 3 to 7 decades after. The world's production peak is approximately now (~2000-2010), and presumably the Saudi's pattern of production isn't greatly different.

If they were to discover tomorrow that their remaining reserves had been underestimated by a factor of three, their peak production year (marking 50 percent of all production) would be shifted into the future by only about 20 years.

I say that, assuming a gaussian model for production, centered about now, and with a standard deviation of about 35 years. (That standard deviation estimate corresponds to a doubling per decade for most of the decades before 1970 or so. The tails of a gaussian are closely approximated by geometric growth/decline).

The delay between production peak and revenues peak is more of an educated guess, on my part.

213 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:34:41am

Thank goodness for Project Better Place in the dual battle against climate change and Saudi Arabian influence.

"In March 2008, Deutsche Bank analysts issued a glowing report stating that the company's approach could be a "paradigm shift" that causes "massive disruption" to the auto industry, and which has "the potential to eliminate the gasoline engine altogether."

214 Walahi  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 4:43:23am

Surely...SURELY the 'Right' (it brings pain to describe this current lot of anti-intellectual, irrational band of bigots are allowed to lay claim to the right wing and conservatism) would want to

While one might not agree with Cap and Trade, further green taxes or some of the interventionist schemes being drawn up to combat climate change, one can surely say 'we have got to get off of oil'. It is expensive, it causes damage to our health (forget even climate change for the moment!) and puts a considerable sum of money into the pockets of individuals who are diametrically opposed to Western values, culture, science. It beggars belief.

Well looking at the last piece:
Bigotry - Check for both the Wahabists and the loony Right
Anti-intellectual - Check again
Opposed to individual freedom - I'd say alot of the SoCons would be comfortable with the Saudis' view on that subject; at least in principle. I mean Saudis want to dictate how you should live, so do the SoCons.

Birds of a feather...

215 Walahi  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 4:45:16am

re: #214 Walahi

PIMF
the first paragraph finishes:

Surely...SURELY the 'Right' (it brings pain to describe this current lot of anti-intellectual, irrational band of bigots are allowed to lay claim to the right wing and conservatism) would want to limit the influence the Saudis have over global affairs, which they fund through oil money. Is this another case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Apologies

216 ulmsey123  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 5:54:29am

re: #17 Charles

The very last thing the Saudis want is for the western world to get serious about alternate sources of energy.

And climate change deniers are playing right into their hands.

1. Finding alternate fuel is in our national best interest. Our reliance on foreign fuels is horrific.
2. Simply because someone else has the same opinion with someone does not mean they share other opinions and views.
3. The world is not fragile. People are. I wish the money being spent on "Global warming" would be put towards other environmental issues that are actually causing sickness and death. Being skeptical of man made climate change does not make me love spewing pollution.

217 spoosmith  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 6:06:14am

'morning Lizards.

In the past couple of weeks, someone posted an analysis of the computer code (in regards to the CRU emails). Can someone please re-post this information or point me to the post? I have tried looking in the archives but can't find it.

Thanks!!

218 Teh Flowah  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 6:28:43am

re: #163 Bagua

They can lobby until the cows come home, as they do, but ultimately it is the voters who chose the legislators who make the decisions.

That's incredibly naive.

219 punditra  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 6:34:15am

Well how about Richard Lindzen, a MIT climatologist or Princeton Physics professor William Happer, for example?

The Climate Science Isn't Settled
[Link: online.wsj.com...]

William Happer, statement to SPPI:
[Link: scienceandpublicpolicy.org...]

220 punditra  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 6:37:08am

So do you lump Lindzen and Happer, together with the "apartheid theocrats" or with the right-wing flat-earthers? I bet none of you will answer this.

221 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:51:10am

re: #212 abolitionist


The Saudi's oil revenue stream (or any nation's) is likely to peak a few decades after their oil production peaks and begins to decline --perhaps 3 to 7 decades after. The world's production peak is approximately now (~2000-2010), and presumably the Saudi's pattern of production isn't greatly different.

Too many assumptions, the Saudi's revenue stream would be halved should the Oil price drop by half, regardless of the status of their fields. Barrels pumped and the price those barrels are sold are two different factors. Also, it is just a guess when the worlds production will peak and new discoveries are the big unknown.

222 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:53:09am

re: #218 Teh Flowah

That's incredibly naive.

That is simply an adjective, you offer nothing to support your statement.

223 a5minmajor  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:59:10am

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

Scroll down in the story to find the bullet point in the text that states : 'Weaken the UN's role in handling Climate Finance:' .
And there they are, folks; the two words that should have been used in this discussion from the start, -Climate Finance-.
And now, the Almighty EPA has decided to regulate your very exhalation as poisonous to the Earth. 'AGW' is a scam with many purposes, but all to the same end. Those of you who have bought into it and refuse to admit, even in the face of evidence, that the scientists LIED; You are climbing onto the boxcars voluntarily. When you get to the camps, and it dawns on you that you've been had, don't expect anyone to save you.

224 jonschr  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:59:24am

Is the point of this post simply to say that climate change "deniers" and the Saudis are on the same side here?

I am a skeptic. I admit that I agree with Saudi Arabia on this particular issue. OK, glad to have that out of the way.

It's not a real argument, of course, to continue that train of thought to "therefore they're both wrong." We could be, of course, and easily so, but simply agreeing with someone who is either bad or not credible doesn't make you wrong by itself. Just a thought. This article is insinuating something it can't come out and say -- because the insinuation is so obviously false.

I'm only making a point about the argument, not trying to convince anyone in a particular direction about global warming. I think my point would be equally valid if I were to assume global warming is real and dangerous.

225 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:01:39am

re: #224 jonschr

You didn't really follow the logic of the post.

Why does Saudi Arabia, the largest oil exporting nation on earth, deny global warming, despite scientific consensus on the topic?

Because they want the world to keep using lots of oil.

Why do you think that the world's climatologists are all wrong, or all conspiratorial?

No idea.

226 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:09:51am

The thing I'm looking forward to most when (or rather, if) we wean ourselves off the oil tit will be the suffering of the oil ticks.

But wait: In one of the NYT articles on Copenhagen recently, I read that Saudi Arabia's main "plan" for dealing with global warming is to try and get the rest of us to compensate them and other oil-producing countries for lost revenue from lower oil consumption (assuming that ever happens, which I doubt).

That's like the liquor industry proposing a law that any alcoholics who get sober have to pay for the booze they no longer drink.

227 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:15:33am

re: #226 Cato the Elder

It's also insane, since we use oil for plenty of other things, and will continue to do so. We just need to stop lighting shit on fire-- that's so BC.

228 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:35:52am

Tell that to the folks here in New England who heat their houses with wood.

A renewable resource, cheap, plentiful, and it smells good. Yay burning shit!

229 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:45:25am

re: #216 ulmsey123

1. Finding alternate fuel is in our national best interest. Our reliance on foreign fuels is horrific.
2. Simply because someone else has the same opinion with someone does not mean they share other opinions and views.
3. The world is not fragile. People are. I wish the money being spent on "Global warming" would be put towards other environmental issues that are actually causing sickness and death. Being skeptical of man made climate change does not make me love spewing pollution.

Exactly. Couldnt agree with you more. Some of my friends (we are all scientists in one field or another) think the world is just about going to end 2012 style. I just dont buy it. The global warming crowd has an agenda just as the oil companies do, and I am skeptical of BOTH sides.

230 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:45:59am

re: #228 Cato the Elder


Actually, they do that out on this coast too, you know-- and in some places it's a problem, especially with the price of heating oil going up. Believe it or not, wood is not a magical thing that causes no pollution when burnt, but actually has its own problems. Seasoned hardwood is a pretty clean burn, but it still produces a bunch of nasty crap. When you have enough households doing it at once in a high density area, you can cause significant pollution. That's why they have burn bans in Washington and Oregon from time to time.

When it's a low population density area like the backwoods in New England, it's not that big a deal, since the main problems from woodsmoke are particulates, which are only really dangerous in concentration.

Using a modern wood stove that burns at a hotter temperature and using only totally dry wood helps to eradicate most of those problems, but wood is still not a solution for anywhere with population density.

231 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:47:35am

re: #223 a5minmajor

That's comedy gold, right there.

232 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:47:50am

re: #225 Obdicut

You didn't really follow the logic of the post.

Why does Saudi Arabia, the largest oil exporting nation on earth, deny global warming, despite scientific consensus on the topic?

Because they want the world to keep using lots of oil.

Why do you think that the world's climatologists are all wrong, or all conspiratorial?

No idea.

Not ALL the world's climatologists agree with the global warming alarmists

233 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:49:47am

re: #232 mad_scientist

Not ALL the world's climatologists agree with the global warming alarmists

No, but the vast majority agree that warming and climate change is a serious issue. Your definition of 'alarmist' notwithstanding.

234 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:52:56am

re: #233 Coracle

No, but the vast majority agree that warming and climate change is a serious issue. Your definition of 'alarmist' notwithstanding.

True, because those who disagree are shunned and many wont reveal their true opinions becuase their reputations will be trashed. Sorry if dont like the "alarmist" label...it is just my opinion that the shoe fits in this case.

235 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:54:13am

re: #232 mad_scientist

Not ALL the world's climatologists agree with the global warming alarmists

97.5% do, though. That's an enormous scientific consensus.

re: #234 mad_scientist

True, because those who disagree are shunned and many wont reveal their true opinions becuase their reputations will be trashed. Sorry if dont like the "alarmist" label...it is just my opinion that the shoe fits in this case.

You claim to be a scientist.

What happens when a scientist demolishes the prevailing theory in a field?

236 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:58:02am

re: #230 Obdicut

I really don't care. I just like burning shit.

237 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:59:15am

re: #235 Obdicut

I did cancer research for 5 years and HIV research for 10. Wnt back to school and now have a PharmD as well. So please, do not insinuate I am not who I say I am.

And to answer your question, if a scientist found a theory that went against 95% of the published works out there, there would be health skepticism about the work. It would be looked over closely.

Of course those who devoted there lives to proving global warming is man made, and dangerous would shun those few who disagree. That doesnt make them wrong. Some of the greatest discoveries about the universe were first thought to be crazy by 95% of the astrophysics community.

238 MKELLY  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:00:36am

If we really want to unhinge ourselves from oil and coal (I do not), then we should be going after methane hydrates off the coasts. Estimates are we have thousands of years of energy available to us.

As for CO2 caused AGW deniers add
Dr. Grey of Australia an IPCC scientist
Dr. Grey of Colorado
Me (no dig oil money here)
Dr. Tim Ball of Canada (he probably has oil on his shoes)
Dr. Idso

So please there are honest people with honest differences that are not haters, anti-science, nor evil.

239 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:01:13am

I know! Maybe if we let the Saudis build minarets in Switzerland, they'd be more cooperative on global warming.

Just a thought.

240 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:03:14am

re: #234 mad_scientist

True, because those who disagree are shunned and many wont reveal their true opinions becuase their reputations will be trashed. Sorry if dont like the "alarmist" label...it is just my opinion that the shoe fits in this case.

Yeah, I've heard that "afraid of rep trash", and call bullshit.

241 MKELLY  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:03:29am

Obdicut please provide the evidence for your 97.5% number. I think your wrong on that.

242 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:04:37am

re: #240 Coracle

Yeah, I've heard that "afraid of rep trash", and call bullshit.

You can call BS all you want...doesnt make it not true.

243 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:05:27am

re: #241 MKELLY

Obdicut please provide the evidence for your 97.5% number. I think your wrong on that.

Numbers like that are usually pulled out of the nether orifice.

244 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:06:35am

re: #243 Cato the Elder

Numbers like that are usually pulled out of the nether orifice.

Agreed

245 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:06:38am

re: #242 mad_scientist

You can call BS all you want...doesnt make it not true.

Just saying something exists, or does not exist, never makes it true - either way.

246 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:07:30am

re: #237 mad_scientist

And to answer your question, if a scientist found a theory that went against 95% of the published works out there, there would be health skepticism about the work. It would be looked over closely.

Which is what's happened to the various crackpot theories denying AGW. They've been looked at closely and debunked.

Of course those who devoted there lives to proving global warming is man made, and dangerous would shun those few who disagree.

Why do you say they've dedicated their lives to proving global warming is man-made, and not to investigating climatology? And rather than 'shunning' them, don't they, in fact, publish papers excoriating the poor science of the deniers and flaying them alive? Yep, they do.

That is, when the deniers actually manage to scrape together enough misapplied physics to actually write a paper rather than simply talking to someone from the Times Online or the Telegraph, that is.


Some of the greatest discoveries about the universe were first thought to be crazy by 95% of the astrophysics community.

Yes, they were. But they were backed up with beautiful, beautiful logic, data, and were provable. Relativity does a better job of explaining movement of bodies than Newton does. The uncertainty principle answers phenomena at the atomic level better than anything else.

What exactly does anti-AGW explain?

re: #241 MKELLY

Obdicut please provide the evidence for your 97.5% number. I think your wrong on that.

Sure. But ask yourself: Why do you think I'm wrong? Do you have a desire for me to be wrong?

97.5% of publishing climatologists

Feel free to be a statistics-denier and attack the validity of the survey, if you like.

247 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:08:05am

What a great thread to wake up to.

248 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:09:06am

re: #245 Coracle

Just saying something exists, or does not exist, never makes it true - either way.

That is true.

249 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:13:06am
Which is what's happened to the various crackpot theories denying AGW. They've been looked at closely and debunked.

I couldnt disagree more.

250 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:14:34am

re: #235 Obdicut

What happens when a scientist demolishes the prevailing theory in a field?

If history is any guide, s/he gets laughed out of court, banished to the outer darkness, defunded, scorned, ridiculed and ostracized, unless and until the rest of the scientific world catches up.

251 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:18:16am

re: #250 Cato the Elder

If history is any guide, s/he gets laughed out of court, banished to the outer darkness, defunded, scorned, ridiculed and ostracized, unless and until the rest of the scientific world catches up.

The physical world has no politics. Time outs the correctness or incorrectness of all scientific theory and hypothesis. The cost of being wrong on climate change is going to be uncomfortable, but not lethal for most people who can post to this forum.

So why should we worry?
/

252 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:18:24am

Here is a list of respect scientists who disagree:

Physicist Freeman Dyson has been a giant in his field for decades. But the British-born, Princeton-based professor has gained notoriety for his "heretical" views on climate change. While he does acknowledge the mechanism by which man-made greenhouse gasses can influence the climate, he claims current models are way too simplistic to capture what's really going on in the real world.

Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish-based scientist, famous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Like Dyson, he's not an outright denier, but rather he thinks the current approach to global warming is misguided and that the costs of drastic, short-term action are too high. Instead, he thinks we should focus on becoming more adaptable, while putting more effort into such real-world tragedies as AIDS and malaria

Japanese scientist Kiminori Itoh is the author of Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. Like many others, Itoh does not reject the notion of global warming entirely, but instead claims that the causes are far more complex than the anti-carbon crowd would have you believe

Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important. His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.

I have many more, but didnt want to make this a HUGE post. They are respected scientists, and they disagree.

253 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:19:33am

re: #251 Coracle

The physical world has no politics. Time outs the correctness or incorrectness of all scientific theory and hypothesis. The cost of being wrong on climate change is going to be uncomfortable, but not lethal for most people who can post to this forum.

So why should we worry?
/

Uncomfortable? A world wide collapse of economies would not just be uncomfortable...

254 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:20:22am

re: #253 mad_scientist

Uncomfortable? A world wide collapse of economies would not just be uncomfortable...

I disagree. Bullshit can be quite comfortable, if you can stand the smell.

255 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:21:27am

re: #254 Coracle

I disagree. Bullshit can be quite comfortable, if you can stand the smell.

So, if they did everything they are proposing at this Global Warming summit, what do you think the effect will be on the world wide economies?

256 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:23:01am

Here's what I honestly don't get about the CO2 debate.

According to the experts at Tällberg, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere need to be stabilized at 350 parts per million (ppm), lower than both current atmospheric levels (382 ppm) and current stabilization targets set by the European Union (around 400 ppm).

So according to the AGW hysterics, an increase of 32 or 50 parts per million in CO2 levels is enough to tip the balance and destroy the climate.

Really?

That's 32 or 50 millionths of a square unit of measurement. The atmosphere is so exquisitely sensitive that it can tell the difference.

OK.

re: #251 Coracle

The physical world has no politics. Time outs the correctness or incorrectness of all scientific theory and hypothesis. The cost of being wrong on climate change is going to be uncomfortable, but not lethal for most people who can post to this forum.

So why should we worry?
/

I'm not worried at all. I leave that to people who like to worry about things they can't do a damn thing about.

257 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:24:35am

re: #255 mad_scientist

So, if they did everything they are proposing at this Global Warming summit, what do you think the effect will be on the world wide economies?

"Everything they are proposing to do?" There are many "they"s there and many proposals, each with its own pros and cons, and each of which is more or less sensitive to alteration and rigorous execution if adopted.

"Worldwide economic collapse" is equal-and-opposite in alarmism and accuracy as "global climate catastrophe tomorrow".

258 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:25:28am

re: #255 mad_scientist

So, if they did everything they are proposing at this Global Warming summit, what do you think the effect will be on the world wide economies?

I don't know for sure, but if you think the American people in the midst of a jobless "recovery" from recession are going to agree to tax themselves up the wazoo to send money to Myanmar and Tanzania for their environmental "sins", you ain't seen a Tea Party yet.

259 Blueheron  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:26:41am

Off topic but did you see where Beck is in trouble with FOX over Becks paid ties to a gold selling company?
I smelled a rat when I heard Beck urge people to buy gold in order to save themselves in the coming collapse. That was followed by a commercial for gold coins? I thought then the odor wasn't good. I was right.

Glenn Beck's dual embrace of gold -- as an investment vehicle for his listeners and a personal moneymaking opportunity for himself -- has drawn boos from various journalism watchdogs. And now it looks like the talk-show host's close relationship with one purveyor of gold coins has gotten him in a bit of trouble with his employer Fox News.

[Link: www.dailyfinance.com...]

260 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:28:59am

re: #258 Cato the Elder

I don't know for sure, but if you think the American people in the midst of a jobless "recovery" from recession are going to agree to tax themselves up the wazoo to send money to Myanmar and Tanzania for their environmental "sins", you ain't seen a Tea Party yet.

I agree. The economy is fragile enough as it is. If we put ant more strains on busniess in the form of regulated CO2 production, we are looking on a collapse of the economy like we have never seen. Just my opinion. Guess I am just an alarmist.

261 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:29:08am

re: #250 Cato the Elder

If history is any guide, s/he gets laughed out of court, banished to the outer darkness, defunded, scorned, ridiculed and ostracized, unless and until the rest of the scientific world catches up.

Did that happen with Dawkins? He's the one scientist who really overthrew a field.

re: #256 Cato the Elder

So according to the AGW hysterics, an increase of 32 or 50 parts per million in CO2 levels is enough to tip the balance and destroy the climate.

Not destroy. Change. And yes, that's what physics says. Is there a reason you find the idea that small amounts of something in something can cause large effects to be odd? It's a pretty common physical occurrence. Your blood has a tiny tiny amount of oxygen in it as mass. I suppose varying it by a small amount wouldn't matter much?

262 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:29:22am

re: #256 Cato the Elder

Cato, if it is indeed a tipping point, it doesn't matter how small the difference is. You've heard of the straw that broke the camel's back.

A scale perfectly balanced with 300 tons on each side will still tip when you add a gram to only one side.

263 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:31:22am

re: #261 Obdicut

Did that happen with Dawkins? He's the one scientist who really overthrew a field most recently.

Fixed that for myself. Apologies.

264 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:31:55am

Obdicut you were wrong there is a differnce in the total number of climatologist and the number of actively published climatologists. You're implication was that 97.5% of all the worlds climatologist and that is not true. The story you site makes a distinction about "actively" publishing.

265 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:31:56am

re: #262 Coracle

Cato, if it is indeed a tipping point, it doesn't matter how small the difference is. You've heard of the straw that broke the camel's back.

A scale perfectly balanced with 300 tons on each side will still tip when you add a gram to only one side.

re: #261 Obdicut

Not destroy. Change. And yes, that's what physics says. Is there a reason you find the idea that small amounts of something in something can cause large effects to be odd? It's a pretty common physical occurrence. Your blood has a tiny tiny amount of oxygen in it as mass. I suppose varying it by a small amount wouldn't matter much?

This prominet scientist disagrees:

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker.

266 mad_scientist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:32:04am

bbl guys

267 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:34:06am

re: #262 Coracle

Cato, if it is indeed a tipping point, it doesn't matter how small the difference is. You've heard of the straw that broke the camel's back.

A scale perfectly balanced with 300 tons on each side will still tip when you add a gram to only one side.

Which would be a disaster neither for the scale nor for the scale owner.

And I do deny (there! I'm a denier!) or rather strongly doubt that humans in the aggregate have the ability to maintain atmospheric concentrations of CO2 within such vanishingly small tolerances.

But by all means, stand everything on its head and hope for the best. Stand on your head and limit your out-breaths to once every five in-breaths. I just don't care about this whole debate enough to join you.

268 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:34:28am

re: #264 MKelly

Okay. So what's the percentage of all climatogists, and why would you rather focus on that number than climatologists publishing on climate change?

If you want the best, most informed opinions about quasars, do you poll all astrophysicists, or astrophysicists who research and publish on the subject of quasars?


re: #265 mad_scientist

What paper has Will Happer published that contests AGW?

269 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:35:34am

re: #267 Cato the Elder

Your protestations that you don't care, that you're going to ignore global warming threads, etc. wear a little bit thin when you keep showing up in every global warming thread talking about hysterics and making arguments of personal incredulity.

270 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:35:57am

re: #261 Obdicut

Did that happen with Dawkins? He's the one scientist who really overthrew a field.

You mean theology?

271 Blueheron  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:36:51am

re: #228 Cato the Elder

Tell that to the folks here in New England who heat their houses with wood.

A renewable resource, cheap, plentiful, and it smells good. Yay burning shit!

Here in Florida we are almost totally dependent on electricity. There are some areas in the panhandle and such who may have access to other energy sources.
If Cap and Trade is implemented here in the states what are we in Florida supposed to do? I don't know if our energy is coming from nuclear power. It had better be or this state will empty of even more people.

272 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:36:51am

re: #269 Obdicut

Your protestations that you don't care, that you're going to ignore global warming threads, etc. wear a little bit thin when you keep showing up in every global warming thread talking about hysterics and making arguments of personal incredulity.

I like swimming against the stream. It proves I'm alive.

273 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:36:59am

re: #270 Cato the Elder

You mean theology?

No, evolutionary biology.

Theology isn't scientific.

So, does what you said about what happens to those who challenge a prevailing theory apply to Dawkins? Or was your statement incorrect?

274 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:37:12am

re: #272 Cato the Elder

I like swimming against the stream. It proves I'm alive.

You and Sarah Palin.

275 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:37:38am

re: #273 Obdicut

No, evolutionary biology.

Theology isn't scientific.

So, does what you said about what happens to those who challenge a prevailing theory apply to Dawkins? Or was your statement incorrect?

Neither.

276 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:37:50am

re: #265 mad_scientist

This prominet scientist disagrees:

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

That only betrays lack of familiarity with both the community and the science.

277 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:39:05am

re: #252 mad_scientist

Not a single one of your "experts" is a climatologist.

Freeman Dyson, by the way, has acknowledged the reality of AGW. This is what he wrote in the New York Review of Books:

As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year... the physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming."

As for Kiminori Itoh:

Background

Dr. Kiminori Itoh recieved his PhD in industrial chemistry from University of Tokyo in 1978. Presently, he is a faculty member of the Engineering Department at the Yokohama National University.

Itoh and Climate Change

Dr. Kiminori Itoh declares himself as a "physical chemist familiar with evironmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science." According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals. Itoh recently co-authored a Japanese language book titled, Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs.

Itoh and Inhofe's list of 650

It appears, Dr. Itoh's statement in the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report outlining the 650 global warming dissenters within the scientific community, was not exactly his. The statement is an amalgomation of the title of the preface ("The Worst Scientific Scandal In History") to his book and a statement given by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu ("When people know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists").

278 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:39:26am

re: #275 Cato the Elder

Neither.

Your statement was incorrect. It was incorrect as it applied to Dawkins, Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, Kimura, Newton, Liebnitz, Bohr, Lavosier, etc. etc.

Can you name a scientist that it applies to?

279 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:40:59am

This is one of the tactics climate deniers share with creationists - they love to post lists packed with ringers, frauds, and people who have no expertise in the field.

280 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:42:09am

re: #271 Blueheron

Here in Florida we are almost totally dependent on electricity. There are some areas in the panhandle and such who may have access to other energy sources.
If Cap and Trade is implemented here in the states what are we in Florida supposed to do? I don't know if our energy is coming from nuclear power. It had better be or this state will empty of even more people.

Nothing personal, but anything that convinces people to give up living in a humid swamp and move somewhere else where they have seasons and very few hurricanes is probably a net gain for humanity.

281 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:42:20am

re: #271 Blueheron


If Cap and Trade is implemented here in the states what are we in Florida supposed to do? I don't know if our energy is coming from nuclear power. It had better be or this state will empty of even more people.

Er... Trade, most likely. That and get solar/wind/nuke plants going. Probably tidal is a possibility down there.

Or not. Wait long enough and there will be less of Florida above sea level to worry about.

282 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:43:23am

re: #274 Obdicut

You and Sarah Palin.

An aphorism quoted by an idiot does not thereby become less true.

283 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:45:16am

re: #282 Cato the Elder

An aphorism quoted by an idiot does not thereby become less true.

True. So what's the wisdom in swimming against the 'tide' of scientific consensus on global warming? Especially since it requires you to keep displaying rather astonishing amounts of ignorance about science, like not believing that something present in just a few parts per million can have large effects?

Couldn't it help you feel alive to actually sit down and understand the science?

284 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:52:21am

re: #283 Obdicut

True. So what's the wisdom in swimming against the 'tide' of scientific consensus on global warming? Especially since it requires you to keep displaying rather astonishing amounts of ignorance about science, like not believing that something present in just a few parts per million can have large effects?

Couldn't it help you feel alive to actually sit down and understand the science?

It's not the science I necessarily doubt. It's the solutions. I have no faith in a group larger than three people agreeing on a sensible course of action when the problem is sitting there right in front of them. I have zero faith in even one person doing the right thing when the problem is two weeks off. My faith in humanity in the aggregate being able to fine-tune atmospheric CO2 levels to within a tolerance of 50 parts per million forty years from now approaches the level of my trust in the long-term viability of fiat currencies backed by nothing but debt. Say, 4,000 degrees below absolute zero.

285 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:53:59am

re: #83 ludwigvanquixote

Here is a short list of AGW supporters.

NASA
NOAA
The American Physical Society
The National Academy of Science
The American Geophysical Union
The Royal Society (Britain)
Académie des sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Hmmm...

I could go on... I hope though that in this debate looking at this list of organizations, vs. the likes of Exxon and politicians and the Saudis on the other side, I like looking at medical organizations vs. a list of tobacco companies.

The Wall Street Journal plays a coy game. (Either that, or they don't trouble themselves to fact check their main editorials.) For instance, today's WSJ main editorial in Review & Outlook, titled "The Copenhagen Concoction", includes this paragraph:

The core question raised by the emails [the stolen East Anglia stuff] is why their authors would behave this way if they are as privately convinced of the strength of their case as they claim in public. The Earth's climate is a profoundly complex system, sensitive, dynamic, and subject to a dizzying range of variables interacting in ways that remain poorly understood. Carbon dioxide is only one of those variables. Climate scientists failed to anticipate the absence of warming in the last decade, a point that Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, privately conceded in one of the emails was a "travesty".

(Emphasis and interjections mine, not theirs.) Now that is not what Trenberth said. No one in the scientific community expects other scientists to correctly anticipate and forecast the specific details of random departures from the overall trendline. It is understood that such departures must be expected from time to time. It is understood that they are not predictable in advance. Who can say what the next sunspot cycle will be like, for instance, or how big the next El Nino will be? What Trenberth was lamenting, because one always wants to understand things better and it's vexing to be stumped, is that even now, after the decade has come in below expectations temperature wise, the scientific community cannot point to where the energy went.

All this squid ink is about a minor detail in the big picture. The WSJ finds a mote in the eye of science, magnifies it, distorts it, and ignores the beam in its own.

The big picture is the retreat of the glaciers. (Article posted as one of the top links, right here on LGF.) No possible machinations of climate researchers, no fudging of thermometers, no way nowhow that this retreat is fake. Millions of eyewitnesses have watched it. Photographic evidence from the trimline of the Columbia glacier in Alaska is unequivocal: vast stretches of rock, a thousand vertical feet or so, now lie bare. No grass grows there, no snow sits on that rock. Given time, grass would grow. It's been just years, mere years, since the ice filled the valley up to that line.

286 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 9:56:49am

re: #284 Cato the Elder

You do doubt the science. You just paraded your 'parts per million' silliness around for us to see. That's either doubting, or not caring to understand, the science.

I have no faith in a group larger than three people agreeing on a sensible course of action when the problem is sitting there right in front of them.

Then make that sour-faced argument, and stay away from the science, please.

By the way, you never answered my question as to the identity of any scientist who fits what you claimed was the common fate of scientists who overthrow a field. Are you going to get around to supporting that at any point?

287 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:03:02am

re: #286 Obdicut

You do doubt the science. You just paraded your 'parts per million' silliness around for us to see. That's either doubting, or not caring to understand, the science.

Oh my God! I'm a science doubter!

There's a word for that. Wait...it's right on the tip of my tongue...

That's right. Heresy.

288 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:04:27am

re: #265 mad_scientist

This prominet scientist disagrees:

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker.

This is simply wrong.

(1) The projected increase is about 3 degrees, Centigrade.

(2) The argument that we already have so much CO2 that more will not matter is incorrect. The physics here are subtle but the work has been done. The first correct explanation goes back to a 19th century scientist named Tyndall.

One way or another, the earth will re-radiate to space all the energy it receives from the sun. If CO2 obstructs that re-radiation, the earth just gets however much hotter it has to get that the same amount as before escapes, as a lower fraction of a greater initial total heat radiation coming off the ground. Layers upon layers do matter.

There are those who want us to cease and desist use of fossil fuels forthwith. That ain't gonna happen. Before we can do that, we must build wind, solar, nuclear, etc. etc. installations so that we'll still have electricity when we mothball the coal mines. There are, unfortunately, Luddites among the AGW crowd, and they would like nothing better than to see the end of industrial civilization. Naturally, people in general will have none of it. Most of us AGW non-skeptics (not the right word, because I'm still of a skeptical turn of mind, but I've learned enough to be convinced on this topic) like our electricity too. How can I post this post if my monitor goes dark? How can you read it if yours goes dark?

289 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:04:28am

re: #287 Cato the Elder

Oh my God! I'm a science doubter!

There's a word for that. Wait...it's right on the tip of my tongue...

That's right. Heresy.

Come on, Cato. You really want to equate science and religion?

I would call it "Willful Ignorance" instead.

290 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:07:38am

re: #287 Cato the Elder

No, people who doubt science are not called heretics. That's a very odd thing to say. Why do you believe this to be true?

By the way:

You never answered my question as to the identity of any scientist who fits what you claimed was the common fate of scientists who overthrow a field. Are you going to get around to supporting that at any point?

291 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:10:53am

re: #252 mad_scientist

As for Bjorn Lomborg, anyone tempted to believe he's an "expert" should read through the material on this website:

Lomborg Errors

His books are amazingly full of errors and misleading statements. He's not a climate scientist -- in fact, the only academic training he has is in political science and game theory, and he's published a grand total of exactly ONE scientific paper -- on game theory, not climatology.

More on Lomborg's background and climate change denial claims:

The Lomborg Story

292 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:12:52am

re: #291 Charles

I used to defend Lomborg, who seemed to be coming at things from an honest angle of wanting to evaluate costs. I felt it was an appropriate question.

Then I realized that the cost analysis of global warming had already been done by many people, and Lomborg was ignoring it intentionally.

That was my moment of feeling very duped on this subject.

293 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:12:58am

re: #289 Coracle

Come on, Cato. You really want to equate science and religion?

I would call it "Willful Ignorance" instead.

No. My real sin is Presentism, with a strong admixture of Pastism. I just can't bring myself to care a tenth as much about 2050 as I do about 2009, or for that matter about 1054 or 476.

Out of all those moments in time, I can do something only about the one I presently inhabit.

I promise to try to fart less today, for the sake of the future.

294 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:22:16am

re: #293 Cato the Elder

No. My real sin is Presentism, with a strong admixture of Pastism. I just can't bring myself to care a tenth as much about 2050 as I do about 2009, or for that matter about 1054 or 476.

Out of all those moments in time, I can do something only about the one I presently inhabit.

I promise to try to fart less today, for the sake of the future.

That's pretty sad. I plan to be around in 2050, and would like it to be as livable as today, or moreso. Whatever happened to planning for retirement?
Your abstinence from farting is appreciated regardless.

295 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:24:10am

re: #290 Obdicut

You never answered my question as to the identity of any scientist who fits what you claimed was the common fate of scientists who overthrow a field. Are you going to get around to supporting that at any point?

I'll tell you what. Why don't you answer my specific question about why 350 ppm CO2 is OK but 382 is dangerously high? I meant that as a real question, but all I've gotten is downdings from true believers. So show me how those levels were agreed on and why 32 millionths more CO2 per measurement unit are going to make such a huge difference and maybe - if I feel like it - I'll work on answering your question.

And don't tell me "it's been linked here a bazillion times". Maybe I missed it.

296 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:29:48am

re: #294 Coracle

That's pretty sad. I plan to be around in 2050, and would like it to be as livable as today, or moreso. Whatever happened to planning for retirement?
Your abstinence from farting is appreciated regardless.

If you think humanity as a whole can plan ahead, I've got an alternate history book to sell you.

In it, World War I never happened because the Great Powers saw the danger of interlocking alliances and fixed mobilization plans, and took steps to extricate themselves from the trap they had set. So there were no millions of dead in France and Flanders and Russia and Italy, and no worldwide depression to follow.

Therefore, there was never a Treaty of Versailles and thus no grievance in Germany for an obscure, failed artist named Schicklgruber to latch on to. Which meant that the Second World War was also avoided, and with it the atomic bomb. There was no USSR, so no Cold War.

And the people who saw the housing balloon for what it was received earnest attention, their warnings were heeded, and we do not now have 10%+ unemployment.

All because people are good at planning ahead.

297 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:33:43am

re: #295 Cato the Elder

I'll tell you what. Why don't you answer my specific question about why 350 ppm CO2 is OK but 382 is dangerously high? I meant that as a real question, but all I've gotten is downdings from true believers. So show me how those levels were agreed on and why 32 millionths more CO2 per measurement unit are going to make such a huge difference and maybe - if I feel like it - I'll work on answering your question.

And don't tell me "it's been linked here a bazillion times". Maybe I missed it.

You do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I assume. Now, think about it, instead of parts per million, as the percentage increase in the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere. What is the difference between 350 parts per million and 382? It's 32. Which is slightly less than 10%. Given that CO2 is such a strong forcer of warming, a 10% change to it is, indeed, very significant. And this is starting on the back of an already-massive increase in CO2 concentration since the pre-industrial days. 350 is not enough to stop all global warming, but it is hopefully-- though many scientists disagree- enough to stop a strongly reinforced warming cycle.

Now, would you care to back up your statement, or transparently dodge doing so yet again?

You could also explain why you think 'heretic' is a word used for people who doubt science.

298 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:35:06am

re: #296 Cato the Elder

Well, there's disagreeing, and then there's putting words in people's mouths. We're not great at planning and acting ahead, as a species. But we have the intellects and power to do so. Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

299 Blueheron  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:38:41am

re: #281 Coracle

Er... Trade, most likely. That and get solar/wind/nuke plants going. Probably tidal is a possibility down there.

Or not. Wait long enough and there will be less of Florida above sea level to worry about.

Nuclear power is my solution. I would run out and buy a Prius if I thought I would have a place to plug it into. But until environmentalists lighten up and allow a faster permitting process for nuclear power I don't have much hope for us down here.

300 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:38:57am

re: #298 Coracle

Well, there's disagreeing, and then there's putting words in people's mouths. We're not great at planning and acting ahead, as a species. But we have the intellects and power to do so. Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

You first.

301 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:39:09am

re: #296 Cato the Elder

It's almost like you're saying something crazy, like the world's population is increasing faster and faster, previously second and third world nations are being industrialized, and that means that we will be generating almost exponentially higher amounts of carbon. Or, are you pointing out that any solution would be so expensive for each and every person, and so economically debilitating for every nation, that it would never actually be taken seriously?

302 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:41:33am

re: #301 cliffster

It's almost like you're saying something crazy, like the world's population is increasing faster and faster, previously second and third world nations are being industrialized, and that means that we will be generating almost exponentially higher amounts of carbon. Or, are you pointing out that any solution would be so expensive for each and every person, and so economically debilitating for every nation, that it would never actually be taken seriously?

Both.

303 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:42:07am

re: #300 Cato the Elder

You first.

Done, Cato. I walk the walk. And I also believe in both the game of inches and miles. Each person has individual power and effect, which can be collectively significant, but we also shape the direction of the country's policy, which is a bigger lever.

304 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:43:43am

re: #297 Obdicut

Now, would you care to back up your statement, or transparently dodge doing so yet again?

You could also explain why you think 'heretic' is a word used for people who doubt science.

If I'm transparent, how can you see me dodging?

It's more fun to have you ask me over and over again, so no, I'm not going to answer your questions. I did say "maybe", didn't I?

305 Blueheron  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:43:55am

re: #280 Cato the Elder

Nothing personal, but anything that convinces people to give up living in a humid swamp and move somewhere else where they have seasons and very few hurricanes is probably a net gain for humanity.

Oh no. You don't get away with dissing Florida not while you all up North are up to your behinds in snow :) This is a great state to live in. But you go on believing how bad it is. The summers down here are bliss without the snowbirds. We have 6 lane highways all to ourselves and we love it :)

306 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:44:25am

re: #303 Coracle

Done, Cato. I walk the walk. And I also believe in both the game of inches and miles. Each person has individual power and effect, which can be collectively significant, but we also shape the direction of the country's policy, which is a bigger lever.

Well, I don't even talk the talk, so why should you expect me to walk that way?

307 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:45:03am

Cato, here is the difference using IPCC figures.
dF= 5.35 ln (C/CO) where C is present day CO2 level and CO is baseline.

using 350 and baseline of 280 we get 1.1938 W/meter squared
using 382 we get 1.6618 W/meter sqrd

So less than .5 W/m sqrd of forcing. Now that is a very small increase in temperature.

By the way the IPCC formula above has two very large flaws in it. So if you do fart please understand that it could cause a tipping point and doom us all.

308 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:45:20am

re: #306 Cato the Elder

Well, I don't even talk the talk, so why should you expect me to walk that way?

I don't. Sadly, I don't have hope anymore that you can be convinced to care.

309 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:46:03am

re: #305 Blueheron

I've been in Florida in summertime. If I owned Florida and Hell, I'd rent Florida to you and live in Hell.

(To paraphrase something once said about Texas.)

310 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:46:50am

re: #308 Coracle

I don't. Sadly, I don't have hope anymore that you can be convinced to care.

"Caring" is like signing a damn internet petition. I refuse to make myself feel good by pretending to care.

311 Blueheron  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:47:18am

re: #307 MKelly

Cato, here is the difference using IPCC figures.
dF= 5.35 ln (C/CO) where C is present day CO2 level and CO is baseline.

using 350 and baseline of 280 we get 1.1938 W/meter squared
using 382 we get 1.6618 W/meter sqrd

So less than .5 W/m sqrd of forcing. Now that is a very small increase in temperature.

By the way the IPCC formula above has two very large flaws in it. So if you do fart please understand that it could cause a tipping point and doom us all.

LOL No beans for Cato!! LOL

312 Blueheron  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:48:46am

re: #309 Cato the Elder

I've been in Florida in summertime. If I owned Florida and Hell, I'd rent Florida to you and live in Hell.

(To paraphrase something once said about Texas.)

Well what you do is take a swim in the pool and do some fishing on the Gulf everyday. Cool all summer :)

313 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:49:34am

Obdicut please stop. Since the change by the IPCC definition is a log function you cannot think that way. It is incorrect. Now that is the second time today you are not correct.

314 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:49:34am

re: #308 Coracle

Not caring is one way to dismiss the science altogether.

315 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:50:26am

re: #308 Coracle

I don't. Sadly, I don't have hope anymore that you can be convinced to care.

That's probably smart of you.

316 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:52:21am

re: #313 MKelly

Could you elaborate on that?

317 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:58:02am

re: #314 Sharmuta

Not caring is one way to dismiss the science altogether.

99.9% of humanity is too busy scraping by to care about something that may or may not happen in 2050. The remaining 0.1% will not change human nature or behavior. Therefore, whatever I think about the science, there is no point in "caring" about something I can no more influence than, well, the weather.

318 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:01:57am

re: #317 Cato the Elder

99.9% of humanity is too busy scraping by to care about something that may or may not happen in 2050. The remaining 0.1% will not change human nature or behavior. Therefore, whatever I think about the science, there is no point in "caring" about something I can no more influence than, well, the weather.

You, individually, living where you do, and possessing the education you possess have more power to affect the world than 99.9% of the rest of human individuals. Your personal decisions can and do affect individuals in that 99.9% who you will never meet or care about. Does that power come with responsibility? We each have to answer that question for ourselves. I know my answer. And I know yours as well, now.

319 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:04:00am

It is a log function for gripe sake. You cannot say a 10% change is "very significant". Please follow the math I did for Cato even though he asked you. I will not explain log functions or math. You either understand why the 10% idea is invalid or you don't.

320 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:05:19am

re: #318 Coracle

You, individually, living where you do, and possessing the education you possess have more power to affect the world than 99.9% of the rest of human individuals. Your personal decisions can and do affect individuals in that 99.9% who you will never meet or care about. Does that power come with responsibility? We each have to answer that question for ourselves. I know my answer. And I know yours as well, now.

I hope you're spending all your time working on the problem, because if you think recycling bottles and driving a Prius is going to make the difference, you're kidding yourself.

But my choice to spend my remaining time on this earth reading great books and mocking humanity means our grandchildren are going to diediedie, right?

Piss off.

321 Coracle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:08:43am

re: #320 Cato the Elder

I hope you're spending all your time working on the problem, because if you think recycling bottles and driving a Prius is going to make the difference, you're kidding yourself.


You have no vision. Very sad.

But my choice to spend my remaining time on this earth reading great books and mocking humanity means our grandchildren are going to diediedie, right?


No, I never said or implied such a thing. However, all our grandchildren will have to deal with the results of all our Cato's indifference.

Piss off.


Yeah. Thought so.

322 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:10:40am

re: #319 MKelly

How is a measurement of parts per million a log function, please?

re: #320 Cato the Elder

Can I assume you're never going to defend your entirely incorrect statement about the fate of scientists that overthrow conventional theories?

323 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:17:13am

re: #301 cliffster

It's almost like you're saying something crazy, like the world's population is increasing faster and faster, previously second and third world nations are being industrialized, and that means that we will be generating almost exponentially higher amounts of carbon. Or, are you pointing out that any solution would be so expensive for each and every person, and so economically debilitating for every nation, that it would never actually be taken seriously?

This is why I'm a religious person. A miracle just occurred! Cliffster and I agree on something.

324 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:18:47am

re: #322 Obdicut

How is a measurement of parts per million a log function, please?

re: #320 Cato the Elder

Can I assume you're never going to defend your entirely incorrect statement about the fate of scientists that overthrow conventional theories?

No. But I won't do it when you're around. Annoying you is too much fun.

325 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:24:06am

re: #324 Cato the Elder

No. But I won't do it when you're around. Annoying you is too much fun.

You don't annoy me when you fail to back up an idiot claim, Cato. You make me happy.

So thanks.

326 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:29:04am

Obdicut read my post 307. If you understand that then you know why you cannot say what you said. If you don't understand post 307. I will not explain log function or math to you.

327 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:32:41am

re: #326 MKelly

I understand log function. The measurements of parts per million is not a log function.

328 MKELLY  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:11:33pm

If you read post 307 then you know why you cannot say "very significant".The formula is right there. I show you the difference between 350 and 382 ppm. Please follow the math in post307.

329 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:34:31pm

re: #328 MKELLY

So less than .5 W/m sqrd of forcing. Now that is a very small increase in temperature.

Why on earth do you think that's a small increase?

330 MKelly  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:46:16pm

Because it is.

331 marsl  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:28:31pm

re: #194 borgcube


I'd knock doors for Obama if he did that. Hell, I'd give him a blowjob.

That's scary... and Michelle would not like to see it...

332 marsl  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:29:49pm

Give me a electric car or give death!

333 tommysilver  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 3:45:26pm

Some philosophical angles missing from many climate change debates:

(1) Arbitrary CO2 concentration limits are meant to defer or delay the tipping point after which catastrophic climate change cannot be prevented by simply limiting future CO2 emissions. If a certain level of CO2 might cause catastrophic climate change (the odds of which are subject to debate), then any additional increase in CO2 would at minimum increase either the severity or imminence of such potential catastrophic climate change. This is the reason to set arbitrary CO2 ppm limits as an interim measure, as silly and ineffectual as it might seem. In other words, you can't have a goal without posts.

(2) Natural CO2 is one thing and man-made CO2 is something completely different. The earth has buffering systems that regulate natural CO2 levels in the atmosphere, in connection with climate cycles, due to sun spots, volcanic activity, tectonic plate movements, eccentricities in earth's orbit, etc. The earth does not have buffering systems to deal with man-made CO2. Therefore it is possible that man-made CO2 will never be re-absorbed and thus meaningful climate change will be permanent, especially with deforestation and ocean toxification reducing the availability of natural CO2 sinks. Permanent climate change might not sound very bad (especially if you live in an area with brutally cold winters) but consider that it might result in massive, abrupt shifts in the world's temperate zones. Forget about little things like mass animal and plant extinctions and wholesale ruination of ecosystems, agriculture requires both water and fertile soil. It is very possible that the two in combination will never again be anywhere near as abundant as they are today. In other words, lack of rain can immediately make fertile land a desert but a desert cannot immediately become fertile land just because of rain. Moreover, climate change does not appear to always occur in a nice smooth manner but rather in wild swings possibly due to perturbations of the ocean conveyor belt that transports heat and moisture around the globe, see
[Link: globalclimate.epri.com...] The point is that even if the end result (in a few eons) isn't a total disaster because Hudson Bay will become the new kickass destination for Spring Break, the transition will be an absolute bitch.

(3) The free market cannot address CO2 by itself (although something like cap and trade attempts to give the free market a voice in it) because even if everybody agreed about the dangers, CO2 emissions would still have very few externalities in the short term since there is little direct negative feedback. After all, everybody still assumes the air to be the ultimate (and perhaps only) truly free commodity. Even when there is some observable negative feedback such as smog, past experience shows that government regulation is required or else people appear completely willing to choke to death and carry the idea that "air is free" to their graves. The free market cannot deal with existential threats such as nuclear weapons either. But governments can (usually) deal with nuclear weapons, otherwise we wouldn't be here, would we? Bottom line, even the most libertarian free market advocate should be willing to admit a role for government when it comes to existential threats that have very few observable externalities in the short term, unless of course the libertarian believes the free market is an ends to a means instead of a means to an end. Then there are those who will point out that regulation of CO2 emissions is not an enumerated federal power in the U.S. Constitution . . . In conclusion, it appears many who deny climate change are doing so not because they truly don't believe the science (even though they probably don't even understand it) but because they don't believe there are any problems government can solve that the free market cannot. Especially when it comes to the very air we breath.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 33 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 87 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1