Video: The Worst That Could Happen

Environment • Views: 6,339

Here’s a video that’s been on YouTube for more than two years, and I can’t believe I’m just finding out about it now. Science teacher Greg Craven makes a powerful case for taking immediate action to ameliorate the effects of global warming, with a simple logical exercise that demonstrates the consequences of failing to do so in a very graphic way.

Youtube Video

Craven has expanded on his argument and responded to the (expected) flood of criticism in this book, which I’ve just added to my reading list: What’s the Worst That Could Happen?

Jump to bottom

656 comments
1 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:16:46pm

I’ve seen this before, and I’m relatively certain it was here at LGF, though not as a post. It’s a good argument.

Now, if someone could tell me what “immediate action” involves, and maybe send me a list of ten things to do immediately that don’t involve money I don’t have, I’d be grateful.

2 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:19:31pm

re: #1 Cato the Elder

I’ve seen this before, and I’m relatively certain it was here at LGF, though not as a post. It’s a good argument.

Now, if someone could tell me what “immediate action” involves, and maybe send me a list of ten things to do immediately that don’t involve money I don’t have, I’d be grateful.

You can do one thing. Write your congressmen, senators, talk to your friends and let them know you think something should be done. Educate. Tell them you want action.

One person screwing in low energy lightbulbs, which I assume you would expect someone to send you in a list, isn’t gonna do much of anything.

3 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:21:21pm

He’s using game theory, a variance of the prisoner’s dilemma.

Cool idea.
But then again, I was already convinced.

4 Cathypop  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:22:04pm

So we can change it but G-D help us if the politicians get involved.
This guy makes alot of sense.

5 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:22:35pm

The end came close to a Clint Eastwood line.

6 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:24:27pm

The promo video for his book:

FLV Video
7 Bagua  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:28:11pm

Bagua’s Music Break™

Good Liquor Gonna Carry Me Down

MP3 Audio
8 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:29:48pm

That was fairly scary but very persuasive.

9 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:29:58pm

re: #2 recusancy

You can do one thing. Write your congressmen, senators, talk to your friends and let them know you think something should be done. Educate. Tell them you want action.

One person screwing in low energy lightbulbs, which I assume you would expect someone to send you in a list, isn’t gonna do much of anything.

I have zero interest in writing people to tell them that “something” should be done when I have zero idea what that “something” should be.

Something should be done about the weather. Yeah, that works.

10 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:30:21pm

re: #1 Cato the Elder

I’ve seen this before, and I’m relatively certain it was here at LGF, though not as a post. It’s a good argument.

Now, if someone could tell me what “immediate action” involves, and maybe send me a list of ten things to do immediately that don’t involve money I don’t have, I’d be grateful.

The best thing you could do is to stop denying the reality of global warming, and stop making fun of people who don’t deny it.

Just sayin’.

11 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:30:53pm

Say GW is true and we spend like crazy and we still end up with a global catastrophe because we didn’t take the right action, or the action we took was not in time (the tipping point was twenty years ago)?

I’m not arguing either way, I’m just saying there is a 5th box.

12 erraticsphinx  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:32:12pm

Very cool video.

13 Vicious Babushka  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:33:21pm

re: #11 Racer X

Say GW is true and we spend like crazy and we still end up with a global catastrophe because we didn’t take the right action, or the action we took was not in time (the tipping point was twenty years ago)?

I’m not arguing either way, I’m just saying there is a 5th box.

Well, we already have massive unemployment and recession, even with little or no action taken to stop global warming. :(

14 EE  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:33:22pm

“Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil”

What they are doing is selecting the data from the tree rings that supports their contention, from the earlier years, and appending to that the temperature data that is more directly measured for the later years, that supports their contention. It’s a mix-and-match game that they are playing, sort of like cherry-picking the data to show what they want to show. Notice that Phil boasts that with this trick, the estimate for 1999 for the Northern Hemisphere is +.44 degrees C with respect to 1961 to 1990. Wouldn’t it have been more honest to show either all tree-ring data, or all direct temperature data, instead of the mixing of data?

15 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:33:54pm

re: #14 EE

Not this again.

16 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:34:09pm

And for those who want to politicize this - is there a possibility that the argument so far has not been persuasive enough? And if so - how do we improve that?

Because saying ‘I told you so’ isn’t going to help much 100 years from now when the shit hits the fan.

17 erraticsphinx  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:34:33pm

Something something something ACORN something something Revered Wright so why?

And oh, climategate.

///
Also, Franklin Marshall Davis.

18 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:34:57pm

re: #11 Racer X

Say GW is true and we spend like crazy and we still end up with a global catastrophe because we didn’t take the right action, or the action we took was not in time (the tipping point was twenty years ago)?

I’m not arguing either way, I’m just saying there is a 5th box.

There is a very good point. But even so, by investing in the science to detect and understand AGW, we gain the best chance to learn if we can’t do anything to stop it and then figure out how to cope. Column A still seems the wisest course to me, but your question is a very good one.

19 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:35:06pm

re: #10 Charles

The best thing you could do is to stop denying the reality of global warming, and stop making fun of people who don’t deny it.

Just sayin’.

I have never denied the reality of global warming. Show me one post where I did so.

I doubt the efficacy of any schemes to control the climate that I’ve yet heard of, and I mock the hubris of people who think they can change the course of human history in the aggregate by holding conferences.

20 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:36:12pm

re: #11 Racer X

Say GW is true and we spend like crazy and we still end up with a global catastrophe because we didn’t take the right action, or the action we took was not in time (the tipping point was twenty years ago)?

I’m not arguing either way, I’m just saying there is a 5th box.

Then we’re screwed either way. You can’t die twice.

21 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:36:23pm

re: #15 Charles

Not this again.

Given the subject, it was only a matter of time before a denier showed up.

22 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:37:26pm

re: #14 EE

Off Topic + Previously Addressed = Boooring

23 Bagua  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:37:43pm

I’m Worried - The Sky is Crying

MP3 Audio
24 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:38:16pm

re: #14 EE

You may want to, um, watch the video.

25 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:38:19pm

Actions we should take:
1. Nuclear engines for large ships (put in whatever precautions you deem necessary to stop pirates or foul play; safe ship reactors are possible and in use today.)
2. Nuclear for most electricity generation in most countries (put some restrtictions - country must have democratic gov’t, good human rights record, and be involved in free trade.)
3. Hyperion style mini-reactors instead of $$$ sent to third world countries as our contribution.
4. Create a waste repository and the infrastructure to support it.
5. Remove some extant barriers to wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro power. (Geothermal releases pollution, so I’m not fully on board with that)
5. Challenge congress to create a Transcontinental high speed freight rail right of way coupled with a fiber and power intertie corridor

26 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:38:23pm

re: #19 Cato the Elder

I have never denied the reality of global warming. Show me one post where I did so.

I doubt the efficacy of any schemes to control the climate that I’ve yet heard of, and I mock the hubris of people who think they can change the course of human history in the aggregate by holding conferences.

You’re a smart guy. You know that you’ve been mocking people who accept the science of global warming ever since I started posting about the subject. Please do not blow smoke up my ass.

27 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:38:25pm

re: #16 Racer X

And for those who want to politicize this - is there a possibility that the argument so far has not been persuasive enough? And if so - how do we improve that?

Because saying ‘I told you so’ isn’t going to help much 100 years from now when the shit hits the fan.

And not doing anything to spite the other side because someone said mean things isn’t going to help much either. Just sayin.

28 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:38:54pm

I posted this on a plant forum, I think if it gets posted around enough, maybe more people will pay attention.

29 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:39:05pm

Every time I wrote that economic concerns do not matter in a world where the economy has collapsed along with civilization in an eco collapse, I have made this argument.

This is exactly the point. Consider it a sort of pascal’s wager. If, I am wrong, worst case is we waste money. If I am right worst case is money and civilization as we know it disappears in the wake of hundreds of millions of deaths, spread of contagion, starvation and war - not to mention our coastal cities.

But it is not just a 50/50 in the row thinking. It’s not even close.

There is no possibility at all that CO2 is not a GHG.

None

The best possible flaw in the science for the deniers would be that something else has a bigger effect. This is actually much much worse, because if that were the case, then there would be nothing we could do to prevent the collapse.

Fortunately, as in thank God, no such thing has been detected. That means we have a chance to do something about it. Further, even something else were a bigger effect, the extra CO2 still must do its thing. Just like water must turn to ice if it gets cold enough, CO2 trapping IR is just a property of the material. That is just the way it is.

When people say that nothing is ever settled in science, it is a deeply disingenuous stance. Eventually enough evidence accumulates that things are settled. Now as a scientist, what I mean by settled is that on order for the picture to be different, everything else we have seen to be true, that was predicted by the first picture must also be explained by some new thing - and the odds of such a new thing even being possible become vanishingly small.

A great example of settled science is the notion that the Earth is round. Think of all the different ways we have observed it’s roundness. We see it as round from orbit. We can even have those orbits because it is round. We call people in Japan and it is dark there during the day here. And on and on. How could all of those things still be true, and yet somehow the Earth is not round.


The science is just as settled with relativity and evolution and QM

QM tells us that CO2 must absorb IR.

So the point is, there is no 50 50 in the row thinking at all.

30 solomonpanting  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:42:39pm

re: #5 Thanos

The end came close to a Clint Eastwood line.

I know what you’re thinking. Do we have five or fifty years left to avert a cataclysm. Well, in the midst of all the discussions I’ve lost count myself. But seeing as how these are Greenhouse Gases and can literally blow your cozy little lifestyle clear to smithereens, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Should I buy gold? Well, should you, punk?

31 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:42:48pm

re: #27 recusancy

And not doing anything to spite the other side because someone said mean things isn’t going to help much either. Just sayin.

You are absolutely correct!

It may be a good idea to avoid the political aspect of it, and stick to the facts and get a more compelling argument. There’s a lot at stake dontcha think?

32 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:43:53pm

re: #30 solomonpanting

I know what you’re thinking. Do we have five or fifty years left to avert a cataclysm. Well, in the midst of all the discussions I’ve lost count myself. But seeing as how these are Greenhouse Gases and can literally blow your cozy little lifestyle clear to smithereens, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Should I buy gold? Well, should you, punk?

I love it. :)

33 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:44:50pm

re: #19 Cato the Elder

I doubt the efficacy of any schemes to control the climate that I’ve yet heard of, and I mock the hubris of people who think they can change the course of human history in the aggregate by holding conferences.

I don’t like the notion of ‘changing climate’ either. I shudder at some of the propositions, like orbiting shields, that propose to ‘change the climate’. If we’re not smart enough to warm it properly, i doubt that we’re smart enough to cool it properly.

But I do think that I don’t want to run out of energy anytime soon. And as we all said a few days ago on a separate thread, I’m getting tired of paying despotic Middle Eastern types for much of the energy that I use. So I already had motivation to work to improve the way that we power our society…now I just have a lot more motivation.

I don’t want to change the climate. I just want to stop changing it, a goal that goes with sustainable energy like peanut butter goes with straight dark chocolate.

34 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:45:45pm

re: #30 solomonpanting

I know what you’re thinking. Do we have five or fifty years left to avert a cataclysm. Well, in the midst of all the discussions I’ve lost count myself. But seeing as how these are Greenhouse Gases and can literally blow your cozy little lifestyle clear to smithereens, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Should I buy gold? Well, should you, punk?

[Glen Beck grabs his chalk and head for his blackboard, whereupon Clint puts Becks head through it and then spanks Beck like the little boy Beck still is at heart.]

/kidding but it’s nice to dream sometimes

35 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:46:31pm

re: #30 solomonpanting

I know what you’re thinking. Do we have five or fifty years left to avert a cataclysm. Well, in the midst of all the discussions I’ve lost count myself. But seeing as how these are Greenhouse Gases and can literally blow your cozy little lifestyle clear to smithereens, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Should I buy gold? Well, should you, punk?

At $1,125 per ounce, it’s a real crap-shoot.

kitco.com

36 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:47:00pm

re: #26 Charles

You’re a smart guy. You know that you’ve been mocking people who accept the science of global warming ever since I started posting about the subject. Please do not blow smoke up my ass.

I have not. Show me a post where I specifically mock the science.

37 bratwurst  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:47:26pm

That sound you are hearing is people sticking their fingers in their ears and humming each time this video is played.

38 RealismRox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:47:29pm

This is all very black and white thinking. What if we do a little to limit our greenhouse gas emissions, which I think is inevitable, and we noticed our planet warms a little, and there are some more catastrophic weather events. Why would it be too late to change course after it becomes more obvious that there is a man-made climate change? Because right now, it really isn’t that obvious anything is happening with our climate, to the average person who observes what’s going on in the world around them.

I’m not saying that we should sit and wait for it to hit the fan, but to some extent I think people will. Why is it climate change totally irreversible? Won’t the CO2 in the atmosphere eventually dissipate and we have a second chance to get it right?

39 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:47:43pm

re: #36 Cato the Elder

I have not. Show me a post where I specifically mock the science.

You mock action on the science. You said so a few posts up thread. Mocking the conference.

40 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:49:21pm

re: #34 Dark_Falcon

[Glen Beck grabs his chalk and head for his blackboard, whereupon Clint puts Becks head through it and then spanks Beck like the little boy Beck still is at heart.]

/kidding but it’s nice to dream sometimes

That’s kinda kinky buddy :)

41 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:50:16pm

re: #38 RealismRox

This is all very black and white thinking. What if we do a little to limit our greenhouse gas emissions, which I think is inevitable, and we noticed our planet warms a little, and there are some more catastrophic weather events. Why would it be too late to change course after it becomes more obvious that there is a man-made climate change? Because right now, it really isn’t that obvious anything is happening with our climate, to the average person who observes what’s going on in the world around them.

I’m not saying that we should sit and wait for it to hit the fan, but to some extent I think people will. Why is it climate change totally irreversible? Won’t the CO2 in the atmosphere eventually dissipate and we have a second chance to get it right?


I never thought I’d find myself writing, “Did you forget the ‘sarc’ tag?”

I guess it was just a question of time - and your post.

42 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:50:37pm

re: #39 recusancy

You mock action on the science. You said so a few posts up thread. Mocking the conference.

Mocking the conference is logical when the conferees by their own admission expect to talk for two weeks and then punt any actual action on emissions until the next conference.

The efficacy of Copenhagen will be approximately that of a strongly-worded letter to Iran.

43 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:52:10pm

Your first post on this thread was mocking action.

44 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:52:17pm

re: #42 Cato the Elder

Mocking the conference is logical when the conferees by their own admission expect to talk for two weeks and then punt any actual action on emissions until the next conference.

The efficacy of Copenhagen will be approximately that of a strongly-worded letter to Iran.

Your first post on this thread was mocking action.

45 Steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:52:18pm

1. Why no “Global Depression’ if True/Yes is what happens?
2 How about Lottery Tickets False or True?

Just thinking!

46 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:52:19pm

re: #36 Cato the Elder

I have not. Show me a post where I specifically mock the science.

Come on, man. I was sincere when I said you’re a smart guy. You obviously are. So why are you trying to deny that you’ve been mocking people who accept the scientific evidence? You know it’s true.

We could use someone with your critical thinking skills on the right side of this issue, if you’d only get over this huge blind spot.

It doesn’t hurt.

47 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:52:35pm

re: #39 recusancy

You mock action on the science. You said so a few posts up thread. Mocking the conference.

That’s Cato, all over.

Mocks the conference and then rocks the casbah.

No respect for noone.

A human tragedy.

48 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:52:39pm

Actions we should take continued:
6. Conserve where it makes sense, use high energy where it makes clean
7. Support urbanization in all countries: denser population centers keep the planet cleaner
8. Start funded research work on Solar Power Satellites and Ocean Thermal Systems
9. Replace the worst first: no cap and trade instead ‘Doze the dirty and then build (solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, if you can’t do those replace coal with natural gas, each notch up in clean helps a bit.)
10. Just stop it with the ethanol, at best it’s a stop gap for oil shorts, mostly it’s paying heed to last centurie’s watchword of “sustainable”. Sustainable doesn’t help if it’s still putting CO2 in the air.)

49 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:53:48pm

re: #25 Thanos

Actions we should take:
1. Nuclear engines for large ships (put in whatever precautions you deem necessary to stop pirates or foul play; safe ship reactors are possible and in use today.)
2. Nuclear for most electricity generation in most countries (put some restrtictions - country must have democratic gov’t, good human rights record, and be involved in free trade.)
3. Hyperion style mini-reactors instead of $$$ sent to third world countries as our contribution.
4. Create a waste repository and the infrastructure to support it.
5. Remove some extant barriers to wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro power. (Geothermal releases pollution, so I’m not fully on board with that)
5. Challenge congress to create a Transcontinental high speed freight rail right of way coupled with a fiber and power intertie corridor

Sounds good to me.I would also suggest that we need to change the way we live. We consume way too much of almost everything; food, electricity, water, electronics, gadgets, cheap plastic crap from wallmart. I think our quality of life would improve if we all lived a little more simply.

50 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:53:54pm

re: #38 RealismRox

This is all very black and white thinking. What if we do a little to limit our greenhouse gas emissions, which I think is inevitable, and we noticed our planet warms a little, and there are some more catastrophic weather events. Why would it be too late to change course after it becomes more obvious that there is a man-made climate change? Because right now, it really isn’t that obvious anything is happening with our climate, to the average person who observes what’s going on in the world around them.

I’m not saying that we should sit and wait for it to hit the fan, but to some extent I think people will. Why is it climate change totally irreversible? Won’t the CO2 in the atmosphere eventually dissipate and we have a second chance to get it right?

Because once things really start to go wrong it will be too late. And its actually pretty obvious that the planet is warming, you just haven’t been paying attention.

51 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:54:22pm

re: #42 Cato the Elder

Mocking the conference is logical when the conferees by their own admission expect to talk for two weeks and then punt any actual action on emissions until the next conference.

The efficacy of Copenhagen will be approximately that of a strongly-worded letter to Iran.

Sadly, I fear you are correct.

Russia sets conditions for climate deal
 Russia met its Kyoto Protocol goal and therefore stipulates that unused emission quotas be carried over to a new climate agreement.

52 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:54:33pm

re: #42 Cato the Elder

Mocking the conference is logical when the conferees by their own admission expect to talk for two weeks and then punt any actual action on emissions until the next conference.

The efficacy of Copenhagen will be approximately that of a strongly-worded letter to Iran.

ON this I must sadly agree. In the mean time the actual science gets worse.

I little hint about me. The days where I respond coolly to attacks from climate deniers or those who try to make political arguments about the science are the day where I have not read yet another good and respectable peer reviewed paper from yet another good and respectable journal that scares the hell out of me.

We just simply do not have the time for this bullshit.

53 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:54:37pm

re: #48 Thanos

Actions we should take continued:
6. Conserve where it makes sense, use high energy where it makes clean
7. Support urbanization in all countries: denser population centers keep the planet cleaner
8. Start funded research work on Solar Power Satellites and Ocean Thermal Systems
9. Replace the worst first: no cap and trade instead ‘Doze the dirty and then build (solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, if you can’t do those replace coal with natural gas, each notch up in clean helps a bit.)
10. Just stop it with the ethanol, at best it’s a stop gap for oil shorts, mostly it’s paying heed to last centurie’s watchword of “sustainable”. Sustainable doesn’t help if it’s still putting CO2 in the air.)

A few points I would like to amend to that, make a small wind generator on homes as common as a wind vain (wait do people still have those?) and totally overhaul our pos power grid.

54 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:55:05pm

re: #48 Thanos

11. Fight back against people smearing scientists with out of context emails, for example, rather than propagating the smear.

12. Support science education. When your alma mater asks you for money, don’t ask about the athletics teams, ask about the science. Support science scholarships.

55 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:55:50pm

re: #54 Obdicut

11. Fight back against people smearing scientists with out of context emails, for example, rather than propagating the smear.

12. Support science education. When your alma mater asks you for money, don’t ask about the athletics teams, ask about the science. Support science scholarships.

I’ll give money to the science department when they let me drink beer in class. //

56 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:56:38pm

re: #46 Charles

We could use someone with your critical thinking skills on the right side of this issue, if you’d only get over this huge blind spot.

It doesn’t hurt.

Exactly the right tone to take with any reasonable doubters (or even deniers). We need everyone on the same side on this.

57 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:56:53pm

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Sounds good to me.I would also suggest that we need to change the way we live. We consume way too much of almost everything; food, electricity, water, electronics, gadgets, cheap plastic crap from wallmart. I think our quality of life would improve if we all lived a little more simply.

I want everyone in the world to have the choice of simple or not, I agree we should conserve, but making conservation the prime and only goal would be foolish. Most people don’t want to live simple lives KT, so I try to keep it real.

58 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:57:33pm

re: #53 Pepper Fox

A few points I would like to amend to that, make a small wind generator on homes as common as a wind vain (wait do people still have those?) and totally overhaul our pos power grid.

Home solar is a far better solution (and cheaper!) than home wind. The unit price is still pretty brutal, but its going down.

Alot more people are going to object to wind turbines everywhere, they mess up the view and can be noisy.

59 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:59:25pm

re: #58 windsagio

Home solar is a far better solution (and cheaper!) than home wind. The unit price is still pretty brutal, but its going down.

Alot more people are going to object to wind turbines everywhere, they mess up the view and can be noisy.

Well yeah solar I have looked at and it is pretty expensive, and here in Texas we get hail. Up to baseball. The solar I’m thinking of would be about the size of the metal domes you see for vents. That would really add up in a giant cookie cutter development feeding in to the grid!

60 soxfan4life  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:00:04pm

re: #29 LudwigVanQuixote

How does mass deaths from diseases like small pox, malaria, and the like fit into the picture? Once we hit a certain point the deaths from the recurrence of disease and plagues will outweigh the ecodamage.

61 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:00:06pm

re: #59 Pepper Fox

Well yeah solar I have looked at and it is pretty expensive, and here in Texas we get hail. Up to baseball. The solar I’m thinking of would be about the size of the metal domes you see for vents. That would really add up in a giant cookie cutter development feeding in to the grid!

*wind on the 2nd to last sentence, my bad

62 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:00:57pm

Imagine the effect on employment, the economy (and eventually the climate) if all past, present and future constructions were retro-fitted or built to be either energy neutral or positive.

That’s one easy, simple and direct way to get the ball rolling.

Once someone figures out how to pay for it.

63 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:02:24pm

re: #60 soxfan4life

How does mass deaths from diseases like small pox, malaria, and the like fit into the picture? Once we hit a certain point the deaths from the recurrence of disease and plagues will outweigh the ecodamage.

really? smallpox? i’m all for a discussion on the potentially wide implications of a bad-case runaway warming scenario, but i can here and now, with great fanfare, declare that smallpox is not an implication.

there - crossed one off the list!

64 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:02:24pm

re: #48 Thanos

Actions we should take continued:
6. Conserve where it makes sense, use high energy where it makes clean
7. Support urbanization in all countries: denser population centers keep the planet cleaner
8. Start funded research work on Solar Power Satellites and Ocean Thermal Systems
9. Replace the worst first: no cap and trade instead ‘Doze the dirty and then build (solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, if you can’t do those replace coal with natural gas, each notch up in clean helps a bit.)
10. Just stop it with the ethanol, at best it’s a stop gap for oil shorts, mostly it’s paying heed to last centurie’s watchword of “sustainable”. Sustainable doesn’t help if it’s still putting CO2 in the air.)

Good ideas.

How far we’ve come. I remember reading about satellite solar power stations 30 years ago. It’s to late to kvetch about the “what ifs” had the pursued the technology then but it’s better to start late then never. For once.

I would also add that I think that it’s important for the United States to act unilaterally on these measures. While there is some importance to international agreements they tend to bog things down and may perhaps prove counterproductive towards the goal of greenhouse gas reductions.

It’s also important to pursue proven technology first.

65 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:02:31pm

re: #57 Thanos

Also! There are some good signs for this kind of need tho’ (at least where I am)

In PDX, the rate of people that bike instead of drive (even in the rain!) is going up at a surprising rate… Which is def. a step in the right direction.

And green power programs are shockingly successful here.

People ARE willing to make sacrifices (at least some) to help the situation.

re: #61 Pepper Fox

I haven’t seen that kind of generator! Sounds cool tho’, I’m still thinking of the guy that put one of those huge pylons in his back yard that got linked the other night…

66 soxfan4life  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:02:49pm

re: #62 ryannon

Imagine the effect on employment, the economy (and eventually the climate) if all past, present and future constructions were retro-fitted or built to be either energy neutral or positive.

That’s one easy, simple and direct way to get the ball rolling.

Once someone figures out how to pay for it.

They haven’t figured out how to pay for the indefinite unemployment benefits they are handing out. If they took your suggestion at least people would be working and paying into the system and the added tax revenue might pay for the money infusion.

67 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:03:55pm

You guys are harshing my buzz.

68 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:03:58pm

re: #62 ryannon

Imagine the effect on employment, the economy (and eventually the climate) if all past, present and future constructions were retro-fitted or built to be either energy neutral or positive.

That’s one easy, simple and direct way to get the ball rolling.

Once someone figures out how to pay for it.

If we could pay for Iraq we can pay for that.

69 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:04:14pm

re: #35 ryannon

At $1,125 per ounce, it’s a real crap-shoot.

[Link: www.kitco.com…]

I bought my Krugerrands at around $320OZ…eighty of them

70 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:04:46pm

I thought satellite power was impossible, due to the physics limitations of beaming huge amounts of power from orbit (too much is absorbed into the atmostphere or is lost to the beam spreading).


Is there something somewhere I don’t know about?

71 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:04:58pm

re: #60 soxfan4life

How does mass deaths from diseases like small pox, malaria, and the like fit into the picture? Once we hit a certain point the deaths from the recurrence of disease and plagues will outweigh the ecodamage.

The issue of AGW as it relates to contagion is that the critters that carry contagions will migrate with climate shifts into new habitats and infect people without immunities.

Given the severe strain put on world economies by loosing cites, wars, refugees and massive food and clean water shortages, it will not likely be possible to produce vaccines and vaccinate quickly enough.

That is how it fits in.

The only bright side to that picture is that if there is a rally bad pandemic, there will be less fighting over food and water.

72 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:05:24pm

re: #69 albusteve

I bought my Krugerrands at around $320OZ…eighty of them

Don’t gloat.

It makes me feel stupid.

73 soxfan4life  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:06:11pm

re: #63 Aceofwhat?

really? smallpox? i’m all for a discussion on the potentially wide implications of a bad-case runaway warming scenario, but i can here and now, with great fanfare, declare that smallpox is not an implication.

there - crossed one off the list!

Has nothing to do with warming, has to do with the de-industrialization being called for to combat AGW. Once we don’t have 24/7 electricity and adequate water purification capabilities, disease will run rampant and the human race will be extinct long before AGW will do us in.

74 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:06:19pm

re: #71 LudwigVanQuixote

The issue of AGW as it relates to contagion is that the critters that carry contagions will migrate with climate shifts into new habitats and infect people without immunities.

Given the severe strain put on world economies by loosing cites, wars, refugees and massive food and clean water shortages, it will not likely be possible to produce vaccines and vaccinate quickly enough.

That is how it fits in.

The only bright side to that picture is that if there is a really bad pandemic, there will be less fighting over food and water.

I should add too that malnourished people are at far greater risk of infection once exposed to a contagion.

75 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:06:25pm

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Sounds good to me.I would also suggest that we need to change the way we live. We consume way too much of almost everything; food, electricity, water, electronics, gadgets, cheap plastic crap from wallmart. I think our quality of life would improve if we all lived a little more simply.

get rid of this titanic beef consumption…

76 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:06:44pm

re: #70 windsagio

I thought satellite power was impossible, due to the physics limitations of beaming huge amounts of power from orbit (too much is absorbed into the atmostphere or is lost to the beam spreading).

Is there something somewhere I don’t know about?

I’m not sure if this got approved but they would do it by radio frequency I guess.

77 Vicious Babushka  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:07:27pm

Israeli environmental technology

78 solomonpanting  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:07:50pm

re: #69 albusteve

I bought my Krugerrands at around $320OZ…eighty of them

So that’s the answer to the $64,000 question.

79 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:08:14pm

re: #70 windsagio

I thought satellite power was impossible, due to the physics limitations of beaming huge amounts of power from orbit (too much is absorbed into the atmostphere or is lost to the beam spreading).

Is there something somewhere I don’t know about?

They’ve done operational tests of beaming power through 4 miles of sea level atmosphere with reasonable efficiency, this was back in the 80’s. It’s true that the rectenna farm would take a huge space, however refinement in focusing beams probably makes it more feasible now than it was in the 80’s.
There’s also the space tether challenge going on right now, so we will see how that goes. Those are past 2050 initiatives, but if we want them then, we must start researching and engineering now.

80 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:08:31pm

re: #73 soxfan4life

my bad, read your post incorrectly. Ludwig was making the disease argument. should have known.

81 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:08:44pm

re: #78 solomonpanting

You can’t eat or drink metal. If the worst case happens gold will have little value.

82 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:09:00pm

re: #75 albusteve

get rid of this titanic beef consumption…

One of the worst things early Americans ever did was shoot all of those bison and replace them with cattle. Bison are a much healthier protein source, and easier on the environment.

83 vermicelli  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:09:12pm

to understand the effects of excessive co2 just look at venus. the surface temp of that planet is over 860 degrees F (hot enough to melt lead) mainly due to greenhouse effect.

someone should use the same Punnett square method but with iranian nuclear weapons. the recessive traits can be freaky.

84 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:09:36pm

re: #68 Pepper Fox

If we could pay for Iraq we can pay for that.

I quite agree. It’s just that so many gazillions are being thrown around these days that I’ve literally lost count of how much and where it’s going.

85 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:09:37pm

re: #75 albusteve

get rid of this titanic beef consumption…

I think reducing our meat consumption would solve a lot of problems. There are a lot of alternatives meats that would add variety to our diet and would also be a lot more friendly the the environment.

86 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:09:38pm

re: #72 ryannon

Don’t gloat.

It makes me feel stupid.

I’m not gloating…they are buried on a Jamaican hilltop…now what?…I’m like duh?

87 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:10:42pm

re: #83 vermicelli

to understand the effects of excessive co2 just look at venus. the surface temp of that planet is over 860 degrees F (hot enough to melt lead) mainly due to greenhouse effect.

someone should use the same Punnett square method but with iranian nuclear weapons. the recessive traits can be freaky.

Punnet squares? Iranian nuclear weapons have genetic traits?

88 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:10:50pm

Saying we would become extinct from this is a bit of a stretch. I think humanity would survive, but they might not like the survival. Civilization might collapse, but people would find a way.

89 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:11:00pm

re: #79 Thanos

I didn’t think about the tether thing for power transmission. That’s my personal favorite for long-term space project anyways, hope somebody figures it out :)

90 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:11:12pm

re: #77 Alouette

Israeli environmental technology

Updinged without even reading your link.

Them jooos are that clever.

91 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:11:28pm

re: #85 Killgore Trout

I think reducing our meat consumption would solve a lot of problems. There are a lot of alternatives meats that would add variety to our diet and would also be a lot more friendly the the environment.

beef is a loser, just as bad as burning corn for fuel…insanity

92 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:11:35pm

This is a variation of Pascal’s Wager — the argument that says “if you believe in God and you’re wrong, it’s not so bad, but if you don’t believe and you’re wrong, it’s REALLY BAD so you should believe in God.” The argument as presented is flawed, whether it’s about God or Climate Change.

In Pascal’s Wager, a skeptic might argue that there are many possible gods, and that choosing to believe in one of them could anger the others, so there are other risks in the “believe” column and therefore it’s not a good choice. One might also argue that they find the existence of the specific god in question to be very unlikely, and therefore, that no matter how big the risk, the possibility is so remote as to be irrelevant. In other words, both (1) other possibilities and (2) the odds of each possibility matter for our decision.

The same is true of this argument. A skeptic could argue a third possibility, such as a meteor hitting the earth and killing everyone, which can only be averted if we develop technology at the maximum possible rate, which introduces a new risk into the “act on global warming” column. (A skeptic in this thread has already done something similar, arguing that de-industrialization could lead to widespread disease.) One could also argue that, in their view, the risk of global warming bringing about actual catastrophe is very small, and therefore irrelevant. In this case, like in the “God” argument, it matters both (1) what other risks/possibilities are present in each column, and (2) how likely each one is to occur.

Mind you, I’m not saying anything about the actual truth; I’m not presenting these arguments as my own. I’m just recognizing that the argument itself, as presented, is deeply flawed in exactly the same way as Pascal’s Wager. It presents one “hell” and states that it should be avoided, but doesn’t provide adequate reason to believe that it’s worse than the hells that might be caused by trying to avoid it, or that it’s likely enough to warrant consideration.

Now, the flaw can be fixed. You need two things: a convincing argument that the catastrophic consequences from Global Warming are VERY likely to happen (or, in PW’s case, that a specific god is VERY likely to be real), and a convincing argument that the alternative risks are enough LESS likely that they’re overwhelmed by the key risk. In other words, you need to be able to highlight that one box in the table and say “this is bad enough AND likely enough that it overwhelms everything else in the table.” Skeptics won’t act based on a philosophy 101 argument; they’ll act if their risk-reward assessment makes them believe the danger of Global Warming is real enough and bad enough to justify the cost.

93 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:11:47pm

OK, I just looked out my window. As usual all of the high rises are lit up. Does that makes sense? Something as simple as turning off the lights?

94 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:11:55pm

re: #88 Thanos

Saying we would become extinct from this is a bit of a stretch. I think humanity would survive, but they might not like the survival. Civilization might collapse, but people would find a way.

We might even get some punctuated equilibrium.

95 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:12:12pm

re: #71 LudwigVanQuixote

The issue of AGW as it relates to contagion is that the critters that carry contagions will migrate with climate shifts into new habitats and infect people without immunities.

Given the severe strain put on world economies by loosing cites, wars, refugees and massive food and clean water shortages, it will not likely be possible to produce vaccines and vaccinate quickly enough.

That is how it fits in.

The only bright side to that picture is that if there is a rally bad pandemic, there will be less fighting over food and water.

Disagree completely. We make vaccines like we make matchbox cars, i.e. the process has become so simple that it’s hard to make a profit. The civil unrest that would be required to shatter our ability to churn out vaccines en masse would do us in before the diseases had a chance.

96 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:13:07pm

re: #95 Aceofwhat?

However, delivery might be a problem…

97 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:13:08pm

re: #88 Thanos

I think it is more about modernity surviving, not humans or even basic civilization.

By “modernity” I don’t mean just the neat little technological toys we’ve made for ourselves, but the social and economic system that allows individuals a great deal of personal freedom.

98 EE  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:13:08pm

OK, I saw the video.
Let’s say that preparing for the worst that can happen is a good policy. Can you imagine what would happen to our daily lives, in all its aspects, if instead of trying to be realistic about the odds of something happening, we acted as if we always feared the very worst that could happen? Perhaps we would hide under our beds all day long, if we could imagine the direst possibilities.

Also, it creates a false dichotomy. We don’t merely have the choice of going to two extremes and acting now on the most severe worst-case scenario. At this time, for the past decade, there has been no warming, and even some slight or trivial cooling, since 1998 is said to have been the warmest year.

Suppose, on the other hand, there is warming, and it may turn out to be a severe problem in the future. (Recall that in the early 1970s, there was a fear of a new ice age — Time magazine even had a cover article spreading the panic about it.) We could study the possibility of geoengineering approaches to combat the warming — such as using stratospheric aerosols. This could be done vastly more inexpensively than what has been proposed, and it would be a more robust approach that didn’t depend on the carbocentric hypothesis that all climate change is due to man-made carbon dioxide.

99 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:13:19pm

re: #92 LotharBot

two words…
snorkle, fins

100 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:14:04pm

re: #90 ryannon

Updinged without even reading your link.

Them jooos are that clever.

How about this: Israeli cold fusion.

Cold fusion would be the holy grail.

101 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:14:19pm

re: #88 Thanos

Saying we would become extinct from this is a bit of a stretch. I think humanity would survive, but they might not like the survival. Civilization might collapse, but people would find a way.

This I agree with. The governments and militaries of the world are strong enough that they will make the tough decisions about who lives and who dies. The way that those with power survive will be by imposing the strictest rationing and most draconian means. They will have no choice really if they want to maintain order.

102 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:14:26pm

re: #85 Killgore Trout

I think reducing our meat consumption would solve a lot of problems. There are a lot of alternatives meats that would add variety to our diet and would also be a lot more friendly the the environment.

You can have my filet when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

103 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:14:59pm

re: #81 LudwigVanQuixote

You can’t eat or drink metal. If the worst case happens gold will have little value.

Absolutely true.

Message to all hoarders:

Will exchange frozen turkeys and bottled water for all your gold.

Act now before it’s too late!

104 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:15:49pm

re: #102 Aceofwhat?

You can have my filet when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

shouldn’t be hard…eating cows is economic suicide

105 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:16:02pm

re: #92 LotharBot

What if they are only 2 percent likely rather than “very likely”? Would you fly regularly on an airline that had a 2 percent chance of crashing?

Remember one of the arguments for going to war in Iraq for those who doubted they had WMD was that we couldn’t take the chance that they did.

The consequences of doing nothing ever for AGW will get extreme, it’s just a question of WHEN, not IF in my humble opinion and I’ve known that since the 80’s. It’s what made me a proponent of nuclear energy.

106 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:16:22pm

re: #92 LotharBot

Now, the flaw can be fixed. You need two things: a convincing argument that the catastrophic consequences from Global Warming are VERY likely to happen (or, in PW’s case, that a specific god is VERY likely to be real), and a convincing argument that the alternative risks are enough LESS likely that they’re overwhelmed by the key risk. In other words, you need to be able to highlight that one box in the table and say “this is bad enough AND likely enough that it overwhelms everything else in the table.” Skeptics won’t act based on a philosophy 101 argument; they’ll act if their risk-reward assessment makes them believe the danger of Global Warming is real enough and bad enough to justify the cost.

The science is more than strong enough and settled that the row thinking is utterly dominated by the threat of an oncoming collapse. The development and deployment of domestic energy production would generate thousands of jobs and pay for itself.

107 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:16:34pm

USA at Night

108 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:16:38pm

re: #98 EE

You mean like Airlines do? Like DHS does?

109 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:17:09pm

re: #108 Thanos

You mean like Airlines do? Like DHS does?

lolchemtrails.

//

110 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:17:20pm

re: lotharbot and EE

Deniers (or skeptics, whatever) really like to post freakin’ essays about this subject, don’t they?

111 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:17:27pm

re: #92 LotharBot

Holy long post batman. Have pithy.

WRT the simplicity of the argument in the video…see the book reference at the beginning.

112 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:17:41pm

re: #93 Gus 802

OK, I just looked out my window. As usual all of the high rises are lit up. Does that makes sense? Something as simple as turning off the lights?

That makes sense. Also are current electrical grid loses 50% percent of the electricity before it gets from the source to the consumer. We definitely need an upgraded super grid.

113 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:17:52pm

re: #95 Aceofwhat?

Disagree completely. We make vaccines like we make matchbox cars, i.e. the process has become so simple that it’s hard to make a profit. The civil unrest that would be required to shatter our ability to churn out vaccines en masse would do us in before the diseases had a chance.

OK shot vs. plague… you are dead either way. Also you are only thinking of the US and we are only now getting H1N1 vaccine out en masse properly.

What about the rest of the world?

114 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:18:27pm

re: #101 LudwigVanQuixote

We’re already seeing this with, for example, India and the fence they are building around Bangladesh.

The stronger country is trying to insulate themselves from the smaller country whose population has a significant fraction (something like 20%) that leave at or near current sea level.

While the fence construction was started not as an adaptation measure to AGW, it will nevertheless come in very handy throughout the 21st century as Bangladesh deals with sea level rises.

115 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:18:30pm

re: #106 LudwigVanQuixote

The science is more than strong enough and settled that the row thinking is utterly dominated by the threat of an oncoming collapse. The development and deployment of domestic energy production would generate thousands of jobs and pay for itself.

thank the fates, the collapse will be so slow and far off you will never notice it in your grave…it is beyond you or your lifetime

116 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:18:52pm

There are SO many little, easy things we could be doing right now.
Turn off the lights when you leave the room. Use a programmable thermostat. Use and turn off your appliances with a surge protector, that also turns off the “energy vampires” of timers & clocks.
However, until it becomes important enough for people to do it, ie. financially worth the effort, it won’t happen. IMHO.

117 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:19:00pm

re: #46 Charles

Come on, man. I was sincere when I said you’re a smart guy. You obviously are. So why are you trying to deny that you’ve been mocking people who accept the scientific evidence? You know it’s true.

We could use someone with your critical thinking skills on the right side of this issue, if you’d only get over this huge blind spot.

It doesn’t hurt.

Charles, I really don’t recall mocking people merely for accepting the scientific evidence. No mockery from me on that basis alone.

I am waiting for proposals that will work. I’m all for alternative sources of energy. I actually do use low-energy light bulbs. I don’t have the money to rebuild my house into a green exemplar like Al Gore’s. I don’t even have the money for car payments on a Prius. I recycle. I buy used stuff. I pull weeds by hand. I’m too old not to use our snowblower, but one can of gas does three storms’ worth of clearing.

I do mock the NIMBYs who think wind farms are great - in some other state. Same for the purists who shun nuclear energy and improved efficiency technologies for burning oil and coal. A net efficiency gain of even 10% in coal plants would be a huge step forward, given that no country currently dependent on coal is going to stop using it in our lifetime.

At the bottom of my mockery, sadly, is an ocean-deep pessimism about human nature. I shall gladly be proven a false Cassandra. Unfortunately what I see is a species that time after time keeps on doing exactly what is easiest while crying out for top-down solutions from governing bodies (League of Nations, United Nations, IAEA, IPCC, Kyoto, Copenhagen) that are not capable of anything more than talk.

We are facing imminent threats from Iran’s nuke program, and we keep talking about useless sanctions.

We face a medium-term threat from greenhouse gases, and the best we can come up with is cap-and-trade and wealth transfers. China, India and Brazil will not be stopped no matter how good an example we set. And when has humanity ever taken the harder road to avoid a disaster whose arrival is measured in years and decades?

World War Two…everyone with a brain knew it was coming.

I am near despair when I think of the future.

If not mocking humanity would make it wise up, I’d stop right now.

118 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:19:00pm

Europe at night.

Yes, I know these include other countries and continents.

119 Jack Burton  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:19:19pm

re: #98 EE

“There’s no cooling”

“Ice age predicted in the 70s”

How many previously debunked talking points and non-sequiturs are you going to whip out?

120 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:19:21pm

re: #107 Gus 802

USA at Night

Now take a look at Africa at night where they have to use fire for cooking, heat and light. Not very environmentally sound, nor good for human health.

121 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:19:44pm

re: #86 albusteve

I’m not gloating…they are buried on a Jamaican hilltop…now what?…I’m like duh?

Jah, mon!

Youtube Video
122 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:20:29pm

re: #98 EE

Or you could just look at the science for real and stop tying to lie about it.

OK, you I am going to take to task. You smear honest hard working people with false claims about e-mails you do not understand again and again long after your ludicrous points have been debunked again and again.

Look at the real science. What is a GHG?

What do GHGs do?

Any explanation of AGW not being an issue has to do away with that very key point. You can not do it, because the nature of CO2 emissions is what it is and has always been.

123 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:20:34pm

Wow so many essays, so many people with nothing better to do tonight! I’m getting a beer and sittin’ outside.

124 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:20:46pm

re: #118 Gus 802

Europe at night.

Yes, I know these include other countries and continents.

I like how in that one Theres a ‘weblike’ pattern in Russia. I wonder if it was planned, or if there are just settlement patterns along those major roadways.

125 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:21:08pm

re: #120 Sharmuta

Now take a look at Africa at night where they have to use fire for cooking, heat and light. Not very environmentally sound, nor good for human health.

You can see Northern Africa here:

Image: 49257main_europe_nightm.jpg

Here’s Africa:

Image: africa_night_2.jpg

Don’t know what they could do about replacing wood as a fuel in Africa.

126 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:21:52pm

re: #124 windsagio

I like how in that one Theres a ‘weblike’ pattern in Russia. I wonder if it was planned, or if there are just settlement patterns along those major roadways.

Oh yeah. It’s radial.

All roads lead to Moscow…

127 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:22:21pm

re: #124 windsagio

I like how in that one Theres a ‘weblike’ pattern in Russia. I wonder if it was planned, or if there are just settlement patterns along those major roadways.

It’s really the Railways, Russia was built such as it is on Rail, not roadways.

128 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:22:29pm

re: #115 albusteve

thank the fates, the collapse will be so slow and far off you will never notice it in your grave…it is beyond you or your lifetime

Yeah, I really don’t care about my kids at all… why would I want them to live in a safe and healthy world… whatever was I thinking?

129 hlazar  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:22:54pm

Silly argument. Worse case is so unlikely that it would require extra assumptions to actually occur. Actual worst case is centuries or Milena in the future. Better to do the minimum of tax rebates for alternate energy.

130 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:23:36pm

re: #114 freetoken

We’re already seeing this with, for example, India and the fence they are building around Bangladesh.

The stronger country is trying to insulate themselves from the smaller country whose population has a significant fraction (something like 20%) that leave at or near current sea level.

While the fence construction was started not as an adaptation measure to AGW, it will nevertheless come in very handy throughout the 21st century as Bangladesh deals with sea level rises.

Like I said many times we are seeing it now.

Like I said many times also, the suffering of poor brown people rarely gets the notice of American Media it might otherwise deserve.

131 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:23:44pm

re: #129 hlazar

OK! Thanks for clearing that up! It all makes sense now!!!

132 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:23:58pm

He’s employing very unsophisticated game theory, and as such there is a large flaw in this logic that has been pointed out to him numerous times. He does not ascribe percentages to each outcome.

Example: A giant volcano could erupt from the Yellowstone caldera and annihilate most life on this planet. Why are we not preparing for this? Because it is a very, very low percentage event and putting money towards it makes no fiscal sense. If we prepared for every possible adverse outcome, we would be bankrupt rather quickly.

The key is determining the likelihood of cataclysmic warming and making political decisions based upon that likelihood.

133 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:24:34pm

re: #92 LotharBot

Skeptics won’t act based on a philosophy 101 argument; they’ll act if their risk-reward assessment makes them believe the danger of Global Warming is real enough and bad enough to justify the cost.

Sorry, but the Inhofe’s, Barton’s, Monckton’s of this world don’t act like that. They reject AGW right not based on “real enough” but on their own psyche desiring to keep their world-view in tack.

This is the same human attribute that keeps 50% of the American populace from accepting evolution. It disturbs their view of themselves.

134 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:24:44pm

re: #100 recusancy

How about this: Israeli cold fusion.

Cold fusion would be the holy grail.

I’ve been following this myself.

The U.S. Defense Department is on it too.

Youtube Video
135 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:25:02pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

OK shot vs. plague… you are dead either way. Also you are only thinking of the US and we are only now getting H1N1 vaccine out en masse properly.

What about the rest of the world?

H1N1 is a poor analogy. We made that from scratch.

Let me help you help yourself. Here’s what i would have said instead:

In the period of great unrest, it would be extremely difficult to defend ourselves against a credible, major disease such as a flu virus gone deadly.


See how that works? ticking off diseases with a higher scare factor whose solutions and antigens we understand much better isn’t going to persuade anyone who isn’t already persuaded.

136 wee fury  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:25:31pm

From an article in 2005
Cow Dung as Fuel

137 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:26:33pm

re: #132 kf


The key is determining the likelihood of cataclysmic warming and making political decisions based upon that likelihood.

The bottom row gets 95% and the top one 5%. Will that work for you?

138 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:26:42pm

If solar water heaters, or electric panels would work on your house, would you spend the money to install them, if they would pay for themselves over their lifetime?

Why do manufacturers of things like clothes washers & dishwashers have “done” lights that can’t be turned off on their appliances?
Do you need to see the time displayed on your TV, VCR, Cd changer, etc, etc, etc?

Do you reuse as much as you can? Do you recycle what you can’t reuse?

Really, there’s a LOT that can be done, now.

139 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:26:54pm

re: #105 Thanos

What if they are only 2 percent likely rather than “very likely”?

Depends on what’s in the rest of the table. Consider: what if the Christian God is 2% likely to be real? Is non-belief worth the 2% risk of hell? If that’s the only consideration, then probably not — but if some other non-compatible god is 80% likely to be real, then avoiding that god’s hell at 80% is much more important than the first one at 2%.

re: #106 LudwigVanQuixote

The science is more than strong enough and settled that the row thinking is utterly dominated by the threat of an oncoming collapse.

As I said in my final paragraph, Pascal’s Wager is flawed, but it can be fixed if you can provide a convincing argument that the “hell” square really DOES dominate the table.

But if you have a convincing argument that your “hell” scenario is really likely, you don’t need to resort to Pascal’s Wager to sell people on avoiding it. That’s why I think the original video is essentially worthless — it provides a classical Philosophy 101 argument that doesn’t actually convince anybody of anything until they’re at the point where they’d be convinced by a much more straightforward argument.

140 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:27:13pm

re: #136 wee fury

From an article in 2005
Cow Dung as Fuel

I read about that awhile back, same goes for any organic waste, like byproduct from slaughter or crops. Pretty much anything you threw in a compost bin. Does anyone still have those?

141 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:27:56pm

re: #125 Gus 802

You can see Northern Africa here:

[Link: www.cybercityradio.com…]

Here’s Africa:

[Link: psdblog.worldbank.org…]

Don’t know what they could do about replacing wood as a fuel in Africa.

Solar furnaces.

Youtube Video
142 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:28:10pm

re: #128 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, I really don’t care about my kids at all… why would I want them to live in a safe and healthy world… whatever was I thinking?

your kids and theirs will deal with the situation better from their time than you can from yours…have some faith

143 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:28:26pm

re: #100 recusancy

How about this: Israeli cold fusion.

Cold fusion would be the holy grail.

GAHHH

Cold fusion is not, can not and will never be real.

There is no chemical reaction with sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion that will allow the strong force to take over and produce fusion. This is dead, dead, dead, before it starts because of energy conservation.

Also, if there were any significant amount of fusion going on in these reactions, there would be the issue of the whole lab staff getting killed by the fast neutrons that come out of a fusion reaction.

This is bullocks

144 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:29:18pm

Deniers really hate this video.

145 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:29:21pm

re: #142 albusteve

your kids and theirs will deal with the situation better from their time than you can from yours…have some faith

Learn some science.

146 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:29:32pm

re: #137 freetoken

The bottom row gets 95% and the top one 5%. Will that work for you?

On what science are these numbers based on?

No, random numbers don’t work (for me at least)…

147 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:29:46pm

re: #144 Charles

Deniers really hate this video.

Getting love mail over it, or looking at the comments on youtube?

148 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:29:57pm

re: #142 albusteve

your kids and theirs will deal with the situation better from their time than you can from yours…have some faith

“Our kids will take care of it so we don’t have to worry! No reason to start now, before things get worse…”


I think thats pretty lazy (if not selfish) reasoning to apply.

149 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:30:24pm

re: #146 kf

The AR4.

150 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:30:33pm

re: #141 ryannon

Solar furnaces.


That would work well during the day and on a clear day. Maybe that’s where the foreign aid can play a role. Wind generated power, batteries, and electric lighting and cooking devices.

152 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:30:47pm

re: #138 Floral Giraffe

If solar water heaters, or electric panels would work on your house, would you spend the money to install them, if they would pay for themselves over their lifetime?

Why do manufacturers of things like clothes washers & dishwashers have “done” lights that can’t be turned off on their appliances?
Do you need to see the time displayed on your TV, VCR, Cd changer, etc, etc, etc?

Do you reuse as much as you can? Do you recycle what you can’t reuse?

Really, there’s a LOT that can be done, now.

Absolutely.

153 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:30:54pm

re: #150 Gus 802

Wind generated and/or solar.

154 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:31:02pm

So Lothar: What’s your personal breakpoint on percent possibility? What point do you say we have to act at?

Because it’s 100 percent probable that we will mostly melt the icecaps within a century or two if we continue to burn carbs for energy.

155 SteveMcGazi  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:31:13pm

re: #142 albusteve

Talk about punting on second down! Let me guess, the kids are going to pay our debts for us too?

156 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:31:24pm

re: #117 Cato the Elder

Ok, well, if you feel it’s time to give up and give in to pessimism, that’s your choice. I’m not going to.

157 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:32:41pm

re: #151 recusancy

The fact that scientists were worried about global cooling in the 1970’s is a myth.



Then it’s not a fact. Your sentence should read “The notion that…”

158 solomonpanting  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:32:42pm

re: #81 LudwigVanQuixote

You can’t eat or drink metal.

Yes, thanks for the heads up.

159 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:33:10pm

re: #144 Charles

Deniers really hate this video.

And, as usual, blow right past your book link because they didn’t really show up here open to learning anything if the opportunity presented itself. Of course the video is too simple to stand on its own. Thus the book.

160 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:33:20pm

re: #139 LotharBot

I guess you haven’t seen the posts I’ve been making here for about a year, chock full of links to journal papers, for why the hell scenario is real.

Here is one good one to start with:

This is a review paper from the National Academy.

pnas.org

161 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:33:20pm

re: #147 LudwigVanQuixote

Getting love mail over it, or looking at the comments on youtube?

No hate mail, because I disabled the contact form — so they’d have to use their own email addresses to send the hate mail. And they’re too cowardly to do that.

162 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:33:31pm

re: #145 LudwigVanQuixote

Learn some science.

science has nothing to do with the timeline you have laid out…it is much too late for any preventative measures to have any effect…you are simply out of touch…learning science has nothing to do with it at this point…what is going to happen will happen

163 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:34:10pm

re: #154 Thanos

So Lothar: What’s your personal breakpoint on percent possibility? What point do you say we have to act at?

Because it’s 100 percent probable that we will mostly melt the icecaps within a century or two if we continue to burn carbs for energy.

The Krebs cycle is melting the icecaps? Crap, we really are pwned!

//

164 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:34:31pm

re: #162 albusteve

…what is going to happen will happen

And here I thought Cato was the doomer in the house…

165 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:34:34pm

OT, and at risk of getting myself some grief, is it really customary to upding Every one of Charles’ posts no matter how small?

(not in reference to the latest post, I’ve been wondering this for a while…)

166 Pepper Fox  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:34:45pm

Buy a mine, fill it with supplies, wait for the world to go to hell. That’s my plan at this point.

167 Vicious Babushka  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:34:48pm

re: #85 Killgore Trout

I think reducing our meat consumption would solve a lot of problems. There are a lot of alternatives meats that would add variety to our diet and would also be a lot more friendly the the environment.

I CANT HAZ CHEEZBURGER?

168 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:35:10pm

re: #143 LudwigVanQuixote

GAHHH

Cold fusion is not, can not and will never be real.

There is no chemical reaction with sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion that will allow the strong force to take over and produce fusion. This is dead, dead, dead, before it starts because of energy conservation.

Also, if there were any significant amount of fusion going on in these reactions, there would be the issue of the whole lab staff getting killed by the fast neutrons that come out of a fusion reaction.

This is bullocks

So why are the Israelis and the Americans still working on it?

Youtube Video
169 Bagua  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:35:16pm

Worried Life Blues - John Lee Hooker

MP3 Audio

/don’t forget to tip the DJ

170 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:35:17pm

re: #156 Charles

Ok, well, if you feel it’s time to give up and give in to pessimism, that’s your choice. I’m not going to.

Who says pessimism is “giving up”? An existentialist would take grave issue with that.

171 Scriptorium  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:35:46pm

We have the technology to build vertical farms.

Should the farm regions start to become unsustainable and marginally productive (as trend data and models suggest many will, and without sufficient replacement farm areas opening up), we might then be ready to feed urban populations locally, organically—and deliciously. There is space, there are skyscrapers for conversion…

Of course, setting up a working model would take some real $$$.

172 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:35:52pm

re: #165 windsagio

OT, and at risk of getting myself some grief, is it really customary to upding Every one of Charles’ posts no matter how small?

(not in reference to the latest post, I’ve been wondering this for a while…)

Yes, and if you don’t, I’ll ban your ass.

(Do I need to add a sarc tag?)

173 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:36:09pm

re: #162 albusteve

science has nothing to do with the timeline you have laid out…it is much too late for any preventative measures to have any effect…you are simply out of touch…learning science has nothing to do with it at this point…what is going to happen will happen

If “what is going to happen will happen” then on a basic level why have wildlife management or forest management?

174 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:36:12pm

re: #85 Killgore Trout

I think reducing our meat consumption would solve a lot of problems. There are a lot of alternatives meats that would add variety to our diet and would also be a lot more friendly the the environment.

And it would drastically reduce strain on the medical system by people having fewer heart attacks, strokes etc…

175 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:36:24pm

re: #157 Cato the Elder

Then it’s not a fact. Your sentence should read “The notion that…”

The notion that scientists were worried about global cooling in the 1970’s is a myth.

Gave me an excuse to post it again.

176 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:36:46pm

re: #166 Pepper Fox

If yer gonna go that way, move out west, buy a quarter-section (or a full section if you can swing it) in the wilds, and stock up on ammo now… and maybe some seeds. Thats alot more sustainable than a survivalist’s bunker >>

re: #172 Charles

Oh damn! I have some posts to go back thru’!

177 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:36:50pm

re: #165 windsagio

OT, and at risk of getting myself some grief, is it really customary to upding Every one of Charles’ posts no matter how small?

(not in reference to the latest post, I’ve been wondering this for a while…)

No, but it’s customary to upding all of mine!
(snicker)

178 amused  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:36:53pm

There’s no doubt any more that the trend is warming, just look at the loss of ice at the poles. I think what’s really holding back the commitment to do anything is that there’s less conviction that the warming is our fault.

179 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:36:57pm

re: #165 windsagio

OT, and at risk of getting myself some grief, is it really customary to upding Every one of Charles’ posts no matter how small?

(not in reference to the latest post, I’ve been wondering this for a while…)

no, it’s customary to upding mine. get to work~

180 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:37:03pm

Charles,

I’m not arguing against Climate Change, or against acting on it. I’m only arguing against the effectiveness of this particular argument. It’s a variation of Pascal’s Wager, and nobody is ever convinced by Pascal’s Wager.

Thanos,

I don’t have a “breakpoint” for Pascal’s Wager, because Pascal’s Wager is a stupid argument. We need to move to more efficient technologies because CO2 emissions are screwing up the environment; we need to weigh costs and benefits and make good decisions as to how much to cut emissions and what policies to use to get it done — but you’re never going to convince anybody to do so through Pascal’s Wager.

181 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:37:19pm

re: #165 windsagio

Only if you want to.
Charles doesn’t need any karma.
He has plenty!

My opinion.

182 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:37:21pm

re: #177 reine.de.tout

No, but it’s customary to upding all of mine!
(snicker)

You win. (as usual)

183 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:37:24pm

re: #148 windsagio

“Our kids will take care of it so we don’t have to worry! No reason to start now, before things get worse…”

I think thats pretty lazy (if not selfish) reasoning to apply.

there is no reversing global warming in anybody’s future…learning to cope with change is an ongoing scenario all future generations will have to live with…you have no idea how to stop the warming do you?…perhaps we can slow it down, but that is political in nature and just as likely not going to happen

184 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:37:42pm

re: #179 Aceofwhat?

re: #177 reine.de.tout

lol, 2fer.

You must get this question alot ;)

185 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:37:53pm

re: #180 LotharBot

Charles,

I’m not arguing against Climate Change, or against acting on it. I’m only arguing against the effectiveness of this particular argument. It’s a variation of Pascal’s Wager, and nobody is ever convinced by Pascal’s Wager.

Thanos,

I don’t have a “breakpoint” for Pascal’s Wager, because Pascal’s Wager is a stupid argument. We need to move to more efficient technologies because CO2 emissions are screwing up the environment; we need to weigh costs and benefits and make good decisions as to how much to cut emissions and what policies to use to get it done — but you’re never going to convince anybody to do so through Pascal’s Wager.

I can live with that.

186 Jack Burton  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:37:53pm

re: #143 LudwigVanQuixote

There would be no fast neutrons from: D + D -> T + p

I don’t believe that there is anyway to force this to occur in favor of D + D -> 3He + n though even in a non-handwavium/unobtainium reactor.

187 Voldsmonopolet  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:38:16pm

re: #92 LotharBot

Sorry, I didn’t mean to downding it.

188 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:38:19pm

re: #155 stevemcg

Talk about punting on second down! Let me guess, the kids are going to pay our debts for us too?

yes they are…and their kids too

189 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:38:23pm

re: #162 albusteve

science has nothing to do with the timeline you have laid out…it is much too late for any preventative measures to have any effect…you are simply out of touch…learning science has nothing to do with it at this point…what is going to happen will happen

Unfortunately, I believe you’re right.

But we need to react (intelligently and not hysterically) as if you’re wrong.

Miracles happen.

190 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:38:25pm

re: #170 Cato the Elder

Who says pessimism is “giving up”? An existentialist would take grave issue with that.

I said what I have to say. I’d rather you were on the right side, trying to find a solution, than nihilistically snarking away at those who are. But we all make our choices.

191 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:38:27pm

re: #174 LudwigVanQuixote

And it would drastically reduce strain on the medical system by people having fewer heart attacks, strokes etc…

Wrong, wrong wrong. Where in the world did you get that from?

192 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:38:30pm

re: #167 Alouette

I CANT HAZ CHEEZBURGER?

Here is one for you.

193 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:40:12pm

re: #165 windsagio

OT, and at risk of getting myself some grief, is it really customary to upding Every one of Charles’ posts no matter how small?

(not in reference to the latest post, I’ve been wondering this for a while…)

He’s Birdman and updings are sun rays.

194 EE  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:40:18pm

If this is a good idea, let’s apply it to all of our affairs. We bet according to the worst that can happen, limited only by our imagination concerning the worst that can happen. In war, our policy would be to always surrender, since we can imagine that we would be defeated and annihilated.

There are some people who do worst-case thinking in a way that the majority do not. Consider the survivalists. Shall we all stock up on food and other supplies in anticipation of the end of the world? I think that Glen Beck has encouraged some thinking along the lines of Chicken Little scenarios with respect to the Obama administration. Is that the right way to think?

The sensible thing is to try to weight the risks of whatever you do or don’t do. That will be difficult. But it leads to very extreme and self-destructive behavior to consider only the worst that can happen. It has been said that the perfect is the enemy of the good. That is, the search for the perfect can be very problematic and counterproductive. And a search for a perfect defense against the worst that can happen, in all things, would lead to a horrific existence.

195 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:40:24pm

re: #191 Aceofwhat?

Wrong, wrong wrong. Where in the world did you get that from?

Ok that really isn’t funny. If I didn’t know you were joking, I would have to think that you had never heard the fact that heart disease and stroke are linked to things like obesity and cholesterol…

196 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:40:25pm

re: #164 freetoken

And here I thought Cato was the doomer in the house…

govts can’t stop GW, we can’t even score on world peace…I’m no idealist

197 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:40:40pm

re: #183 albusteve

there is no reversing global warming in anybody’s future…learning to cope with change is an ongoing scenario all future generations will have to live with…you have no idea how to stop the warming do you?…perhaps we can slow it down, but that is political in nature and just as likely not going to happen

well hold on.

So, because slowing global warming is hard and/or unlikely, we should leave it for future generations, when the damage will be much greater?


I’ve heard your argument before, but only as a joke, or attributed to the mean-spiritedness of others. To have someone (apparently) seriously take that position, is, well… mind-boggling.

“I’ll be dead, right?!”

198 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:41:20pm

re: #174 LudwigVanQuixote

And it would drastically reduce strain on the medical system by people having fewer heart attacks, strokes etc…

Go read the new england journal of medicine.

199 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:41:23pm

re: #192 Sharmuta

Here is one for you.

OMG that is too cute!

I went to that site the other night and LOLed ‘til my entire family came to see what I was laughing at.

200 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:41:37pm

You might think I’m a loon for proposing nuclear freight ship propulsion upthread, but some of big freighters, like Maersk and others use, burn 1000 to 1600 gallons of Diesel per hour of travel. That’s huge carbon output, worth it because without it we send some countries into famine and stop a lot of trade, but we need to find an alternative.

201 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:42:12pm

re: #149 freetoken

That’s 20th century warming and it’s actually 90%.

202 Scriptorium  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:42:23pm

re: #132 kf

He’s employing very unsophisticated game theory, and as such there is a large flaw in this logic that has been pointed out to him numerous times. He does not ascribe percentages to each outcome.

He acknowledges that his model is simplistic. He suggests that interested persons construct their own version and build in complexity and add odds. He made that pretty clear.

203 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:43:01pm

re: #195 LudwigVanQuixote

Ok that really isn’t funny. If I didn’t know you were joking, I would have to think that you had never heard the fact that heart disease and stroke are linked to things like obesity and cholesterol…

Go read my link. Heart disease and stroke aren’t linked with a high-protein diet, even if a significant part of the protein is derived from beef. In fact, a high-protein diet can be a very effective, long-term solution.

Sheesh.

204 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:43:26pm

re: #194 EE

So I take it you aren’t happy with Boeing, IBM, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon and other private ventures building to worst case scenarios or near to them?

205 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:43:59pm

re: #10 Charles

The best thing you could do is to stop denying the reality of global warming, and stop making fun of people who don’t deny it.

Just sayin’.

Cato never uses sarc tags.

Just saying.

206 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:44:03pm

re: #200 Thanos

At the Copenhagen conference, one part of the documents being negotiated indeed cover emissions from sea vessels and shipping.

Ships consume a non-trivial portion of hydrocarbon liquids. The fuel they use is heavier than what we put in our gasoline automobiles. It also pollutes terribly.

And remember, before the use of oil, coal was used in steam ships.

207 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:44:08pm

re: #193 recusancy

He’s Birdman and updings are sun rays.

man, I’ve been watching original Spaceghost and Dino-boy episodes on demand at work. They age surprisingly well!

re: #200 Thanos

Imo, in alot of ways its a better solution/use for nuclear tech than (as someone put it) ‘getting the majority of our power from nuclear plants’.

Quicker to implement and also helps us with energy independence.

208 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:44:42pm

re: #186 ArchangelMichael

There would be no fast neutrons from: D + D -> T + p

I don’t believe that there is anyway to force this to occur in favor of D + D -> 3He + n though even in a non-handwavium/unobtainium reactor.

And under the violent conditions of a fusion reaction, or even a fission reaction, how quickly does tritium decay? Why is it used as a neutron initiator to speed up atomic and fusion blasts?

209 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:44:44pm

re: #197 windsagio

well hold on.

So, because slowing global warming is hard and/or unlikely, we should leave it for future generations, when the damage will be much greater?

I’ve heard your argument before, but only as a joke, or attributed to the mean-spiritedness of others. To have someone (apparently) seriously take that position, is, well… mind-boggling.

“I’ll be dead, right?!”

we’ll see what happens…Cope is the last, best chance chance to avert this crisis right?…isn’t that their motto?…if we don’t do something NOW, we are doomed?…ain’t gonna happen

210 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:44:52pm

re: #198 Aceofwhat?

Go read the new england journal of medicine.

That’s just a study of diets.

YOu can find NEJM articles here regarding meat consumption and health risks.

211 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:45:14pm

Personally, I would be more concerned with global cooling then global warming!

212 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:45:15pm

re: #190 Charles

I said what I have to say. I’d rather you were on the right side, trying to find a solution, than nihilistically snarking away at those who are. But we all make our choices.

I know someone who bought carbon offsets for his whole family for Christmas two years ago based on the EPA ratings of their cars and estimated annual mileage. He had the very best intentions in the world, and his family had a year of guilt-free driving.

Until he found out that the carbon-offset company in question was a well-run fraud.

When I see solutions that will work I’ll sign on.

If being skeptical of what’s on offer at the moment makes me a nihilist in your eyes, I’ll have to live with that.

213 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:45:19pm

re: #203 Aceofwhat?

Go read my link. Heart disease and stroke aren’t linked with a high-protein diet, even if a significant part of the protein is derived from beef. In fact, a high-protein diet can be a very effective, long-term solution.

Sheesh.

It’s not the protein, it’s the fat, innit?

214 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:45:32pm

re: #202 Scriptorium

He acknowledges that his model is simplistic. He suggests that interested persons construct their own version and build in complexity and add odds. He made that pretty clear.

It’s simplistic to the point of absurdity. There’s plenty of reasons we should be decarbonizing our economy, but speaking for myself, I am unconvinced that cataclysmic warming is near the top of that list. Further, the precautionary principle (i.e. this video) is a last resort argument that tells us to ignore any scientific disagreements and/or flaws and act in haste out of fear.

215 Jack Burton  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:45:54pm

re: #208 LudwigVanQuixote

And under the violent conditions of a fusion reaction, or even a fission reaction, how quickly does tritium decay? Why is it used as a neutron initiator to speed up atomic and fusion blasts?

It beta decays to Helium 3. Still no neutrons. You can stop beta radiation with a piece of aluminum foil.

216 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:46:07pm

re: #207 windsagio

man, I’ve been watching original Spaceghost and Dino-boy episodes on demand at work. They age surprisingly well!

re: #200 Thanos

Imo, in alot of ways its a better solution/use for nuclear tech than (as someone put it) ‘getting the majority of our power from nuclear plants’.

Quicker to implement and also helps us with energy independence.

It could also create a new ship construction boom in the first country that starts doing it.

217 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:46:10pm

re: #201 kf

Are you saying that 21st century warming will be even less human caused?

By the way, the “likely” vs “very likely”, 90% vs 95%, and such arguments are politically driven.

Go ahead and use 90% then. The bottom row gets 90%, the top row gets 10%.

218 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:46:16pm

re: #194 EE

It’s called risk management. I, like Ron Burgundy, am a big enough deal to get involved in it at my corporation. The video is a very short example, and is clearly not meant to stand on its own.

the question is, what would a proper risk management probability study look like with regard to AGW.

the question is not whether we should act based on a four-square grid.

another question - are you ever pithy? just wonderin’

219 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:46:52pm

re: #198 Aceofwhat?

Go read the new england journal of medicine.

because obesity and cholesterol don’t contribute to risk of heart disease and stroke as per the NEJM? Really, the joke was funny once. It isn’t now.

220 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:48:20pm

re: #218 Aceofwhat?

It’s called risk management. I, like Ron Burgundy, am a big enough deal to get involved in it at my corporation. The video is a very short example, and is clearly not meant to stand on its own.

the question is, what would a proper risk management probability study look like with regard to AGW.

the question is not whether we should act based on a four-square grid.

another question - are you ever pithy? just wonderin’

Indeed. You don’t build the telephone network to support the worst peak hour of calling on Mother’s day, but you do build it to support the worst peak hour on Mondays.

221 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:49:02pm

re: #209 albusteve

we’ll see what happens…Cope is the last, best chance chance to avert this crisis right?…isn’t that their motto?…if we don’t do something NOW, we are doomed?…ain’t gonna happen

well theres ‘pessimism’ or ‘giving up’ raising their heads again.

Even if people don’t expect much from Copenhagen, we need to do something, and we need to continue to try. (And I’ll note, certainly didn’t get “Cope is the last, best chance to avert this crisis…” from anything *I* said)

The more visibility, and the more pressure that is applied to the issue the better.


Believe it or not, doing something thats marginally effective is substantially better than doing nothing.

222 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:49:14pm

re: #218 Aceofwhat?

Thufferin’ thuccotash. Pithiness is a lost art.

223 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:49:35pm

re: #211 steve

GAZE

224 Bagua  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:50:23pm

re: #198 Aceofwhat?

Go read the new england journal of medicine.

Your link isn’t to the NEJM, it is to a CNN article on diets. They are examining which diets are more effective for weight-loss. All of the diets studied followed American Heart Association guidelines.

225 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:50:28pm
because obesity and cholesterol don’t contribute to risk of heart disease and stroke as per the NEJM? Really, the joke was funny once. It isn’t now.

i’m really struggling to say this more clearly. this is what i’m saying:

a high-protein diet will tend to reduce one’s risk of heart disease and stroke.

is that straightforward enough? You said earlier that reducing our meat consumption would reduce strain on the medical system. I say nonsense. Meat consumption in no way leads to heart attack and stroke.

226 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:50:36pm

By the way, there’s a whole series of follow-up videos to this one, dealing with the exact denialist claims currently being posted in this thread. And I can’t help suspecting that those posting the denialist claims know that.

227 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:50:43pm

re: #223 Dark_Falcon

GAZE

Why?

228 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:50:52pm

blah blah…we should move ahead to reduce CO2 because it is economically favorable for us to do so…if we save the planet in the long run, fine…world wide draconian measures (which are almost inconceivable at this point) will cause more suffering, mayhem and death than GW itself…yadda yadda…so I’m an extremist that cares not for human life etc etc…some people here just cannot remove themselves from fantasy

229 the yankee  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:50:55pm

This is a video about population increase. I found it interesting cause he mentions the local government and media doesn’t completely understand it. Or maybe he is wrong lol.

Youtube Video
230 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:51:40pm

re: #143 LudwigVanQuixote

GAHHH

Cold fusion is not, can not and will never be real.

There is no chemical reaction with sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion that will allow the strong force to take over and produce fusion. This is dead, dead, dead, before it starts because of energy conservation.

Also, if there were any significant amount of fusion going on in these reactions, there would be the issue of the whole lab staff getting killed by the fast neutrons that come out of a fusion reaction.

This is bullocks


Bullocks continued:

nextbigfuture.com

So what has changed over the last twenty years ?

There are more detections of various nuclear reaction products like neutrons.
There is more reliability in the tests. 70-80% consistency of getting some results.
Nanoparticles and thin films begin reactions without delays for loading to critical levels.
There is more understanding of the elements of the tests that can lead to failed tests. The quality of the palladium at the nano-scale.

Some say it does not look like regular nuclear fusion in a tokomak. Why should it look like nuclear reactions in a diffuse plasma when they are new reactions in a condensed solid ?

Pamela Mosier-Boss and colleagues at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) in San Diego, California, are claiming to have made a “significant” discovery – clear evidence of the products of cold fusion. Tracks of energetic Neutrons are being detected.

One of the most important new research was done in Japan by Arata where heat was produced without adding electricity but just loading deuterium into metal powder.

This site had a preview of the 60 Minutes piece and had videos made by Energetics Technologies, who lab was visited by the 60 Minutes hired independent investigator and is indicating that they are close to commercialization.

231 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:51:42pm

re: #224 Bagua

Your link isn’t to the NEJM, it is to a CNN article on diets. They are examining which diets are more effective for weight-loss. All of the diets studied followed American Heart Association guidelines.

the study was published in the NEJM. you only had to read two paragraphs to figure that out…throw me a friggin bone here…

232 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:52:00pm

re: #222 Cato the Elder

Pithiness is a lost art.

MP3 Audio
233 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:52:20pm

re: #222 Cato the Elder

Thufferin’ thuccotash. Pithiness is a lost art.

Not as long as you still practice it, Cato. Charles also practices it. The dnier trolls seem to think they can overcome facts and science by burying them is words.

234 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:52:39pm

re: #220 Thanos

Indeed. You don’t build the telephone network to support the worst peak hour of calling on Mother’s day, but you do build it to support the worst peak hour on Mondays.

Well said, and briefly said to boot. EE - take notes.

235 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:53:31pm

re: #211 steve

Personally, I would be more concerned with global cooling then global warming!

Personally, I would be more concerned with the unicorn imperialist army then al quaeda.

236 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:53:48pm

re: #215 ArchangelMichael

It beta decays to Helium 3. Still no neutrons. You can stop beta radiation with a piece of aluminum foil.

Yes it does, but what happens if you super heat it and it reacts with some of the deuterium? Where do thermal neutrons come from?

Tritium wouldn’t make a very good external neutron initiator if you didn’t get neutrons from somewhere…

237 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:53:50pm

re: #227 steve

Why?

Because you posted a comment that was so odds with the science that it wasn’t worth answering.

238 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:53:54pm

re: #222 Cato the Elder

Thufferin’ thuccotash. Pithiness is a lost art.

I would posit that some have yet to discover it, much less lose it!

239 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:54:25pm

re: #235 recusancy

Personally, I would be more concerned with the unicorn imperialist army then al quaeda.

What has mythical beasts got to do with it?

240 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:54:27pm

re: #221 windsagio

well theres ‘pessimism’ or ‘giving up’ raising their heads again.

Even if people don’t expect much from Copenhagen, we need to do something, and we need to continue to try. (And I’ll note, certainly didn’t get “Cope is the last, best chance to avert this crisis…” from anything *I* said)

The more visibility, and the more pressure that is applied to the issue the better.

Believe it or not, doing something thats marginally effective is substantially better than doing nothing.

I’ve stated my case on how to save the planet…state yours and what you think the human race should do…are you a man of action?…recycle and all that?

241 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:54:49pm

re: #237 Dark_Falcon

Because you posted a comment that was so odds with the science that it wasn’t worth answering.

What is odd about it?

242 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:55:21pm

re: #239 steve

What has mythical beasts got to do with it?

You take that back about our future unicorn overlords!

243 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:56:02pm

re: #242 recusancy

You take that back about our future unicorn overlords!

Well, I for one will welcome our future unicorn overlords.

244 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:56:22pm

re: #242 recusancy

You take that back about our future unicorn overlords!

I apologize for being a denier of mythical beasts!

245 Jack Burton  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:56:32pm

re: #236 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes it does, but what happens if you super heat it and it reacts with some of the deuterium? Where do thermal neutrons come from?

Tritium wouldn’t make a very good external neutron initiator if you didn’t get neutrons from somewhere…

In the case of this (likely) Fantasy Reactor though, only the deuterium will enter the lattice to be magically compressed into strong force range. If the water is superheated to the point where there are He-3 + D reactions just “happening” the room would probably have exploded by that time.

246 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:56:45pm

re: #243 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, I for one will welcome our future unicorn overlords.


Are they American unicorns?

247 kingkenrod  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:57:06pm

Craven seems awfully confident that the “True” and “Yes” quarter = smiley face. Craven says column Yes “eliminates” the global catastrophe, I don’t think he, or anyone, can make that guarantee, or can guarantee that a war against AGW would be successful.

Yes, the issue of the actual cost is important. People think cost in fighting AGW just means paying more in taxes or higher prices on goods and services. There are other costs, costs in freedom, technology, progress.

248 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:57:41pm

re: #243 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, I for one will welcome our future unicorn overlords.

What is the speed of a unicorn?

249 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:57:47pm

re: #241 steve

What is odd about it?

Read the stuff Ludwig has posted. CO2 absorbs IR radiation, thus causing the planet to heat up. In such an environment, cooling in not a real threat.

250 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:58:08pm

re: #200 Thanos

You might think I’m a loon for proposing nuclear freight ship propulsion upthread, but some of big freighters, like Maersk and others use, burn 1000 to 1600 gallons of Diesel per hour of travel. That’s huge carbon output, worth it because without it we send some countries into famine and stop a lot of trade, but we need to find an alternative.

The Somali pirates will no doubt think that is a great idea, but I think this is better and a hell of a lot simpler.

First Transatlantic Voyage of Kite-powered Ship

251 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:58:33pm

re: #248 steve

What is the speed of a unicorn?

FedEx or USPS?

252 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:58:36pm

re: #248 steve

What is the speed of a unicorn?

Only Chuck Norris knows.

253 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:59:39pm

re: #246 JasonA

Are they American unicorns?

Of course. They come from the ‘real America’, dontcha know?

254 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:59:52pm

re: #251 albusteve

FedEx or USPS?

I was thinking more along the lines of ‘African vs European vs American.’

255 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 7:59:54pm

re: #248 steve

What is the speed of a unicorn?

an African unicorn or a European unicorn?

256 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:00:09pm

re: #248 steve

What is the speed of a unicorn?

Fast enough to lead you back to your reeducation camp at horn-point, buster!

257 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:00:24pm

re: #239 steve

What has mythical beasts got to do with it?

What have grammar to do with thought?

258 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:00:30pm

re: #245 ArchangelMichael

In the case of this (likely) Fantasy Reactor though, only the deuterium will enter the lattice to be magically compressed into strong force range. If the water is superheated to the point where there are He-3 + D reactions just “happening” the room would probably have exploded by that time.

Which was sort of my original point. However there are other fusion reactions. I don’t know if they were claiming D + D -> T +p. D + T certainly shoots fast neutrons all over the place and if your reaction is violent enough to give D+D you will certainly get some D + T because that is easier to do.

However this is really secondary to the whole Coulomb argument. That’s why I listed it second. Energy conservation first, last and always :)

259 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:00:53pm

re: #240 albusteve

I’ve stated my case on how to save the planet…state yours and what you think the human race should do…are you a man of action?…recycle and all that?

Well, of course its not about *me* per se’ (Tu quoque, and all that jazz), but sure. I pay for renewable power from my utility, I bike to work when feasable (or walk when its snowing), I recycle my crap.


And maybe I missed it in previous threads, but I haven’t seen you suggest anything but ‘leave it to your kids!’

260 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:01:01pm

re: #255 Aceofwhat?

an African unicorn or a European unicorn?

Laden or unladen?

261 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:01:02pm

re: #257 Cato the Elder

What have grammar to do with thought?

nothing…why?

262 steve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:01:39pm

Well folks 0400 comes early so I have to go. It has been fun.
Warmed up to a balmy 34F today.

Good Night All!!!

263 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:01:40pm

re: #259 windsagio

I recycle my crap.

Err, lol. That didn’t come out quite right >>

264 zelnaga  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:01:54pm

Even if you don’t buy into climate change there are still lots of reasons to look at greener technologies. Green technologies help eliminate the need for oil consumption which stops putting money into the hands of corrupt governments. There’s also the theory of peak oil - even if you don’t think climate change will affect us all that much there’s still the fact that there’s only a finite supply of oil on the planet.

To top it off, I think it can be more economical, too. Consider mass transit for example. In all likelihood, it’s going to be cheaper to buy twelve month long bus passes each year than it is going to be to buy gas, get oil changes, pay for car insurance, car repairs, and car loans. And not only is it cheaper - it’s better for the environment. A bus with fifty people on it is going to put out less pollution than fifty cars.

Certainly not all proposals to combat global warming will make things cheaper (eg. cap and trade) but some strategies can (as discussed above).

All that said, I do think there is a small problem with the argument presented in the video. In particular, using the same logic the video uses, one could argue that the Large Hadron Collider shouldn’t be activated. If you activate it, the worst case scenario, according to some people, is that a black hole will form and suck up the Earth. If you don’t activate it, the worst case scenario is that we deprive ourselves of neat new toys that a better understanding of physics could have produced.

Of course, the problem with that as an argument is that the worst case scenario of black holes is completely far fetched. Even if you assume it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s even remotely probable.

Global warming deniers likely believe that the probability (and that’s assuming you can convince them that it’s possible) of global warming destroying life as we know it is next to nothing and that the probability of economic depression is very likely. They’re no more going to be convinced by this video than a scientist at CERN would be convinced by the above black hole argument.

265 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:02:01pm

re: #260 Cato the Elder

Laden or unladen?

wait…i don’t know…ahhh

266 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:02:47pm

re: #259 windsagio

Well, of course its not about *me* per se’ (Tu quoque, and all that jazz), but sure. I pay for renewable power from my utility, I bike to work when feasable (or walk when its snowing), I recycle my crap.

And maybe I missed it in previous threads, but I haven’t seen you suggest anything but ‘leave it to your kids!’

that’s what it’s like for a nooby…I’m not gonna state my case everytime someone new wonders what I think

267 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:03:00pm

re: #250 Naso Tang

The Somali pirates will no doubt think that is a great idea, but I think this is better and a hell of a lot simpler.

First Transatlantic Voyage of Kite-powered Ship

Wind powered sailing dates from antiquity, while it’s true that we can do it more efficiently now than then, today’s global dependencies demand fast, large ocean freight and sail doesn’t cut the mustard for that, and never will again. It’s a nice dream but if it were doable or really feasible you would see freight companies doing it now, they would love to save the fuel costs.

268 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:03:23pm

re: #257 Cato the Elder

What have grammar to do with thought?

that was well done.

269 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:03:29pm

re: #248 steve

What is the speed of a unicorn?

In a vacuum or air?

270 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:04:08pm

We need to reduce our carbon emissions to keep from destroying our environment. Some people will always remain skeptics, but most people will be swayed if they’re shown evidence that convinces them the problem is both real and significant, and that the solutions are legitimate and effective. Virtually nobody will be convinced by Pascal’s Wager, because it’s a weak argument. Therefore, we should stick to solid evidence (as in other threads) instead of Pascal’s Wager.

(Pithy enough rewrite of #92?)

271 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:04:17pm

re: #217 freetoken

Are you saying that 21st century warming will be even less human caused?

By the way, the “likely” vs “very likely”, 90% vs 95%, and such arguments are politically driven.

Go ahead and use 90% then. The bottom row gets 90%, the top row gets 10%.

Each additional molecule of carbon dioxide has a diminishing warming effect. That is to say, if we doubled CO2, all other things being equal, the climate would increase 2 degrees (made-up number), and if we doubled CO2 again, all things being equal, the climate would increase 1 degrees (again made-up, you get the gist). Therefore, the hypothesis that we will experience cataclysmic warming is based upon positive feedback loops. That is to say, doubling the CO2 will cause A, B, and C to happen and increase the warming even more. These include changes in cloud cover, the melting of the permafrost, and changes in the reflectivity of the Earth. Now, in the very limited time span that we have real climate observations to compare to models (SRES scenarios start January 1st, 2001, so roughly 9 years), the models are not performing well. This calls into question whether these positive feedbacks are being modeled correctly. Further, the current research suggests that cloud feedbacks are being modeled incorrectly and that instead of being a positive feedback, they are in fact possibly negative.

The science is a lot more nuanced and complicated than simply “we’re warming and there’s no stopping it.”

272 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:04:37pm

re: #29 LudwigVanQuixote

There is no possibility at all that CO2 is not a GHG.

None

The best possible flaw in the science for the deniers would be that something else has a bigger effect. This is actually much much worse, because if that were the case, then there would be nothing we could do to prevent the collapse.

Hate to nitpick, but methane is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas. Some of the info on that might keep you up at night.

273 cliffster  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:04:38pm

What’s up with the gratuitous use of the term, “Tu quoque” around here?

Oh, good saturday evening, yall

274 Vicious Babushka  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:04:59pm

re: #192 Sharmuta

Here is one for you.

Love it!

275 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:05:19pm

re: #258 LudwigVanQuixote

And just to continue the point, what lattice, which works by EM forces could possibly differentiate between D and T?

276 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:05:33pm

Things that should be growing in your winter garden but probably aren’t (episode 1)
Salsify and Scorzonera

Very cold hardy, easy to grow and exceptionally prolific. you probably won’t find them at your local mega mart and the organic stores for wealthy hippies will charge you an arm and a leg for it.
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall shows you how to cook it (video available at link)
Salsify and scorzonera gratin

277 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:06:06pm

re: #273 cliffster

What’s up with the gratuitous use of the term, “Tu quoque” around here?

Oh, good saturday evening, yall

it’s the new pink…posters here are very fad sensitive

278 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:06:17pm

re: #271 kf

I don’t know where you are getting that line, but temp on the planet Venus belies your argument.

279 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:06:38pm

re: #270 LotharBot

Getting there. But this wasn’t Pascal’s wager, it was an invitation to open a discussion about risk management probability theory, which is an appropriate approach towards…well…risk management.

280 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:06:45pm

re: #250 Naso Tang

The Somali pirates will no doubt think that is a great idea, but I think this is better and a hell of a lot simpler.

First Transatlantic Voyage of Kite-powered Ship

Don’t let Charlie Brown sail that ship. He would somehow get the ship caught in a tree.

281 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:06:53pm

re: #266 albusteve

that’s what it’s like for a nooby…I’m not gonna state my case everytime someone new wonders what I think

pff, I figured you’d go for that, it was only a matter of time. Its a good sign that your argument is in trouble if you’re appealing to how long you’ve been here (or I guess to how long I *haven’t* been here)


Anyhoo; burden of proof is on you. I’ve listed the only real ‘solution’ you’ve posted in the current discussion, and it was, well, no good.

re: #273 cliffster

Hey now! I looked it up again to make sure I was remembering the term right!

“If the shoe fits..”

282 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:06:58pm

re: #264 zelnaga

All that said, I do think there is a small problem with the argument presented in the video. In particular, using the same logic the video uses, one could argue that the Large Hadron Collider shouldn’t be activated. If you activate it, the worst case scenario, according to some people, is that a black hole will form and suck up the Earth. If you don’t activate it, the worst case scenario is that we deprive ourselves of neat new toys that a better understanding of physics could have produced.

Of course, the problem with that as an argument is that the worst case scenario of black holes is completely far fetched. Even if you assume it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s even remotely probable.

No credible scientist is proposing that a black hole will result from the LHC. Most credible scientists are proposing that if nothing is done global warming will be a catastrophe to the human race.

283 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:07:29pm

re: #267 Thanos

Did you read the article? This is not going back to sail. It is a significant average increase in fuel efficiency at relatively little cost, to retrofit any ship of any size.

284 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:07:39pm

re: #282 recusancy

No credible scientist is proposing that a black hole will result from the LHC. Most credible scientists are proposing that if nothing is done global warming will be a catastrophe to the human race.

No, but the media does love a scary story to print.

285 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:07:55pm

I’d love to see a Yes/No poll on the questions raised in the LGF climate and global warming threads.

I predict that we’d see that most Lizards believe in man-made climate change, most believe that steps should be taken to limit it and that most also believe that it’s either too late and/or impossible in terms of worldwide action to do anything about it. Utterly paradoxical results, but symptomatic of the lack of resolution and consensus seen here.

286 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:08:24pm

re: #271 kf

The science is a lot more nuanced and complicated than simply “we’re warming and there’s no stopping it.”

Of course it is. Who, pray tell, is the origin of your quote above?

287 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:08:29pm

re: #278 Thanos

I don’t know where you are getting that line, but temp on the planet Venus belies your argument.

Which line?

Please feel free to research what I have posted on your own; I assure you it’s true.

288 Jack Burton  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:08:59pm

re: #275 LudwigVanQuixote

And just to continue the point, what lattice, which works by EM forces could possibly differentiate between D and T?

No, of course not. Therefore my use of words like magically and unobtainium. I’m open to the idea that there’s some new field of condensed matter physics that will allow this, (or maybe it’s just tunneling) but I’m not buying it without some explanation other than “we think it might sorta kinda do…”

289 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:09:05pm

By the way, admixed with the snark in my comment #1 was a sincere request for suggestions.

As has been said, marginal improvements make a difference, too.

So if someone has a list of things that regular folks can do without spending money they don’t have, please post it. I’d be interested to know what low-tech, inexpensive things I could be doing that I’m not already.

C’mon, people, whack this nihilistic pessimist upside the head!

290 The Yankee  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:09:08pm

Sorry this was the video i wanted to link too..

Youtube Video
291 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:09:54pm

re: #264 zelnaga

Global warming deniers likely believe that the probability (and that’s assuming you can convince them that it’s possible) of global warming destroying life as we know it is next to nothing and that the probability of economic depression is very likely. They’re no more going to be convinced by this video than a scientist at CERN would be convinced by the above black hole argument.

There’s a significant number of people who won’t be convinced by ANY evidence. They’ll continue denying the reality of global warming even as the water rises around their feet and the port of Los Angeles is shut down.

I’m not posting these articles and videos for them. They’re beyond reason. I’m posting them for the people who are honestly confused about the issue, because of the enormous amount of bullshit that’s being spread by the Republican Party and their well paid climate denial industry shills. These are the people who aren’t lost yet, and haven’t closed their minds and retreated into impenetrable, comfortable ignorance.

Watch the video I posted above, especially the ending. That’s why I’m posting on the subject.

292 Scriptorium  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:09:55pm

re: #214 kf

It’s simplistic to the point of absurdity. There’s plenty of reasons we should be decarbonizing our economy, but speaking for myself, I am unconvinced that cataclysmic warming is near the top of that list. Further, the precautionary principle (i.e. this video) is a last resort argument that tells us to ignore any scientific disagreements and/or flaws and act in haste out of fear.

The precautionary principle is used by managers, governors, and leaders throughout the world. Think of the FDA as a U.S. example. The precautionary principle does not depend upon drumming up fear; neither does it suggest ignoring odds and risk assessment.

293 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:10:01pm

re: #283 Naso Tang

Did you read the article? This is not going back to sail. It is a significant average increase in fuel efficiency at relatively little cost, to retrofit any ship of any size.

Arghh.. no I did not, you caught me, mea culpa and apologies.

Still and all we need nuclear propulsion because it’s better than the diesel they will burn with the combo. Kudos to them for coming up with a way to extend fuel, and if the costs and maintenance are low you will see adaptation of the antique tech.

294 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:10:35pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

Bicycle (or walk, if you’re tough).

Use mass transit (passes usually compare favorably to parking and fuel)

theres 2 :)

295 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:11:34pm

re: #287 kf

No, it doesn’t work that way around here, you made a claim, back it with a link. Otherwise we find you and your claims less than credible.

296 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:11:48pm

re: #275 LudwigVanQuixote

And just to continue the point, what lattice, which works by EM forces could possibly differentiate between D and T?

All very well and good, but you still haven’t explained why the Israeli, the Japanese and SPANWAR in San Digeo are still screwing around with it. Are they that dumb?

nextbigfuture.com

297 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:12:20pm

re: #281 windsagio

pff, I figured you’d go for that, it was only a matter of time. Its a good sign that your argument is in trouble if you’re appealing to how long you’ve been here (or I guess to how long I *haven’t* been here)

Anyhoo; burden of proof is on you. I’ve listed the only real ‘solution’ you’ve posted in the current discussion, and it was, well, no good.

re: #273 cliffster

Hey now! I looked it up again to make sure I was remembering the term right!

“If the shoe fits..”

it’s the way it is regardless of what you think…I don’t owe you any explanation for anything, think what you will

298 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:12:22pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

The aptly named treehugger.com has a very comprehensive list

299 jaunte  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:12:45pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

Here are a couple of inexpensive things that save energy:
- Home energy audit; find out where the leaks are and plug them.
- Buy more local food, shop farmer’s markets, grow some fruit and greens at

300 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:12:53pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

Here you go!

re: #116 Floral Giraffe

301 albusteve  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:13:29pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

By the way, admixed with the snark in my comment #1 was a sincere request for suggestions.

As has been said, marginal improvements make a difference, too.

So if someone has a list of things that regular folks can do without spending money they don’t have, please post it. I’d be interested to know what low-tech, inexpensive things I could be doing that I’m not already.

C’mon, people, whack this nihilistic pessimist upside the head!

get rid of you car…seems logical enough, if your question is serious

302 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:13:37pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

I’d be interested to know what low-tech, inexpensive things I could be doing that I’m not already.

C’mon, people, whack this nihilistic pessimist upside the head!

Whack!
You didn’t tell us which ones you are already doing.

Surely you don’t expect us to fall for that one do you?

303 zelnaga  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:13:57pm

re: #282 recusancy

No credible scientist is proposing that a black hole will result from the LHC. Most credible scientists are proposing that if nothing is done global warming will be a catastrophe to the human race.

I’m not aware of a credible scientist proposing global warming isn’t happening and that it’s consequences aren’t going to be devastating, either. I’m not the one that needs convincing, however, and those that would aren’t likely to buy into it for the reasons I stated.

It’s like… those who fear LHC created black holes don’t listen to respected scientists when they say they aren’t and those who are afraid of sequestering carbon emissions aren’t going to listen, either. I mean, maybe there is a way to convince them but I don’t think the argument presented in the video is going to do it for them.

304 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:14:04pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

unep.org

305 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:14:22pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

By the way, admixed with the snark in my comment #1 was a sincere request for suggestions.

As has been said, marginal improvements make a difference, too.

So if someone has a list of things that regular folks can do without spending money they don’t have, please post it. I’d be interested to know what low-tech, inexpensive things I could be doing that I’m not already.

C’mon, people, whack this nihilistic pessimist upside the head!

Will it generate electricity?

Can I light my house by doing this repeatedly?

306 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:14:57pm

re: #291 Charles

There’s a significant number of people who won’t be convinced by ANY evidence. They’ll continue denying the reality of global warming even as the water rises around their feet and the port of Los Angeles is shut down.

I’m not posting these articles and videos for them. They’re beyond reason. I’m posting them for the people who are honestly confused about the issue, because of the enormous amount of bullshit that’s being spread by the Republican Party and their well paid climate denial industry shills. These are the people who aren’t lost yet, and haven’t closed their minds and retreated into impenetrable, comfortable ignorance.

Watch the video I posted above, especially the ending. That’s why I’m posting on the subject.

Charles the ocean is rising at 3mm per annum, sans acceleration. Sea level rise in and of itself isn’t particularly noteworthy since we are in an interglacial period. I realize you’re just trying to make a point, but it’s just a tiny bit silly.

You can inspect the sea-level changes at sealevel.colorado.edu

307 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:15:15pm

re: #302 Naso Tang

apparently some of us have :)

re: #297 albusteve

I guess you’re done trying to support your positions (whatever they may actually be) then…

308 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:15:17pm

re: #271 kf

You need to update your talking points, as even Lindzen, the proponent of “iris” effect and those nasty clouds is giving up on it.

On the catastrophe part, you skip over the entire paleoclimate record. During the previous interglacial periods, the Eemian roughly 100,000 years ago, and the previous interglacial before that, temperatures were just a bit warmer than today and yet sea levels were several feet higher. In other words, there is reason to believe that even modest temperature rises over today will lead to significant sea level rise.

As for the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 doubling, you are of course unwilling to admit to anything more than the purely radiative balance (which is near 1.2C), though again all the paleoclimatology data would indicate the sensitivity has to be more than that.

Finally, the models area hind-cast to the entire 20th century record and unlike your assertion, those were observations, and indeed the models do reproduce the 20th century fairly well. The three generations of models have shown progress on this matter, and the third generation handles the major changes as well as the volcanic influences very well.

Your right, the science is more nuance than your current grasp.

309 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:16:23pm

re: #298 Obdicut

Just DO NOT look at the “personal hygeine” section.
I’ve advanced past what my Gramma had available for her use, thank you very much!

310 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:16:33pm

re: #303 zelnaga

I’m not aware of a credible scientist proposing global warming isn’t happening and that it’s consequences aren’t going to be devastating, either. I’m not the one that needs convincing, however, and those that would aren’t likely to buy into it for the reasons I stated.

It’s like… those who fear LHC created black holes don’t listen to respected scientists when they say they aren’t and those who are afraid of sequestering carbon emissions aren’t going to listen, either. I mean, maybe there is a way to convince them but I don’t think the argument presented in the video is going to do it for them.

Well… Hopefully they are enough of a minority that once all the reasoned thinkers are persuaded or at least open to favoring action we’ll have enough political will that we won’t need them.

311 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:17:59pm

re: #299 jaunte

Here are a couple of inexpensive things that save energy:
- Home energy audit; find out where the leaks are and plug them.
- Buy more local food, shop farmer’s markets, grow some fruit and greens at

Most local energy companies will do a home audit for free. I had one done recently on my house, learned quite a bit from the analysis, and made some changes to reduce my energy consumption.

This is a good thing to do, but much larger measures are going to be necessary to make a real impact, the kinds of measures only governments can put in place.

312 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:18:15pm

re: #308 freetoken

You need to update your talking points, as even Lindzen, the proponent of “iris” effect and those nasty clouds is giving up on it.

On the catastrophe part, you skip over the entire paleoclimate record. During the previous interglacial periods, the Eemian roughly 100,000 years ago, and the previous interglacial before that, temperatures were just a bit warmer than today and yet sea levels were several feet higher. In other words, there is reason to believe that even modest temperature rises over today will lead to significant sea level rise.

As for the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 doubling, you are of course unwilling to admit to anything more than the purely radiative balance (which is near 1.2C), though again all the paleoclimatology data would indicate the sensitivity has to be more than that.

Finally, the models area hind-cast to the entire 20th century record and unlike your assertion, those were observations, and indeed the models do reproduce the 20th century fairly well. The three generations of models have shown progress on this matter, and the third generation handles the major changes as well as the volcanic influences very well.

Your right, the science is more nuance than your current grasp.

Damn Freetoken! Look at that post! I tip my hat to you!

313 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:18:30pm

Alright, this story from Treehugger made me laugh my ass off.

Saudi Arabia Running out of Sand

314 jaunte  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:18:33pm

Pedal Powered Generator - Electricity From Exercise

Every morning, I pedal to generate electricity. The Pedal Generator I ride charges batteries, that run an inverter, that produces 110v AC, that powers LED lights, the monitor on my computer, my cell phones, and charges my Roomba as well as many other small battery-powered things. It is the most inspiring workout you can imagine.


los-gatos.ca.us

315 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:18:53pm

re: #306 kf

… since we are in an interglacial period.

Don’t you think it is a bit silly to base a key position on that inane observation without telling us when the next glacial period will start?

316 zelnaga  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:19:18pm

re: #291 Charles

There’s a significant number of people who won’t be convinced by ANY evidence. They’ll continue denying the reality of global warming even as the water rises around their feet and the port of Los Angeles is shut down.

I’m not posting these articles and videos for them. They’re beyond reason. I’m posting them for the people who are honestly confused about the issue, because of the enormous amount of bullshit that’s being spread by the Republican Party and their well paid climate denial industry shills. These are the people who aren’t lost yet, and haven’t closed their minds and retreated into impenetrable, comfortable ignorance.

Ah - ok. I do thinkre: #303 zelnaga

I’m not aware of a credible scientist proposing global warming isn’t happening and that it’s consequences aren’t going to be devastating, either. I’m not the one that needs convincing, however, and those that would aren’t likely to buy into it for the reasons I stated.

It’s like… those who fear LHC created black holes don’t listen to respected scientists when they say they aren’t and those who are afraid of sequestering carbon emissions aren’t going to listen, either. I mean, maybe there is a way to convince them but I don’t think the argument presented in the video is going to do it for them.

I didn’t see Charles had replied to my comment when I had made my post. Had I seen it I’m not sure I would have made the followup post since I think Charles is right - some people won’t be convinced of anything and so, for those people, there’s no point in trying (unfortunately).

317 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:19:54pm

re: #313 JasonA

Alright, this story from Treehugger made me laugh my ass off.

Saudi Arabia Running out of Sand

Heh. And they do import coal to Newcastle.

318 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:20:16pm

re: #313 JasonA

Yet the Kingdom has halted exports of the stuff, a major component of concrete, and it is causing problems in Bahrain and other countries that depend on imports of high quality Saudi sand.

So they are/were the best salesmen in the world!

319 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:20:20pm

re: #314 jaunte

Pedal Powered Generator - Electricity From Exercise


[Link: www.los-gatos.ca.us…]

If we had to pedal for all our energy however, who do you think would be peddaling and who do you think would hold the whips and guns?

320 Vicious Babushka  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:20:47pm

Who remembers this song from 40 years ago?

Day after day
More people move to L.A.
Sshh! Don’t you tell anybody
The whole place shakin’ away

Where will you go
When there’s no San Francisco
Better get ready
To tie up your boat in Idaho!

321 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:21:19pm

re: #312 LudwigVanQuixote

Damn Freetoken! Look at that post! I tip my hat to you!

Thanks…

I’m heading back to the holodeck now… tonight it’s the Miss Venezuela finalists vs. the Japanese female diving team… should be interesting.

322 jaunte  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:21:37pm

re: #319 Thanos
Reminds me of an old galley-slave joke:
“The bad news is the captain wants to water-ski after breakfast.”

323 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:21:43pm

re: #296 ryannon

All very well and good, but you still haven’t explained why the Israeli, the Japanese and SPANWAR in San Digeo are still screwing around with it. Are they that dumb?

[Link: nextbigfuture.com…]

These experiments are cheap. The politicos who fund them think what’s 500k here or there is the potential payoff is that big. Unfortunately, science has always had it’s share of wild goose chases funded by non scientists. NASA even got earmarked money for anti gravity experiments.

Periodically people still fund the latest perpetual motion machine (the NASA anti gravity stuff was an example of that actually). The short form is real scientists never bet against energy conservation or thermodynamics.

Politicians and generals sometimes do if they are thinking what the hell.

324 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:21:57pm

re: #319 Thanos

If we had to pedal for all our energy however, who do you think would be peddaling and who do you think would hold the whips and guns?

The Amish?

325 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:23:12pm

re: #289 Cato the Elder

C’mon, people, whack this nihilistic pessimist upside the head!

And here I thought I was the only one here. My thesis for my industrial design major is a flood response boat for debris cleanup and rescue.

326 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:24:02pm

re: #314 jaunte

Pedal Powered Generator - Electricity From Exercise


[Link: www.los-gatos.ca.us…]

Would be nice to put all of the energy I consume (food) to some economical use during my daily workout.

327 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:24:19pm

What are the Norks up to?

Thais seize plane filled with weapons

Thai police have detained the crew of a cargo plane that landed in Bangkok over the weekend with a hold filled with weapons.

The plane, which had taken off from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang for an unknown destination, had made an emergency request to refuel at Bangkok. When Thai officials boarded the plane, a Soviet designed Il-76, they found up to 40 tons of weaponry including rocket-propelled grenades, according to local media.

Officials said they had acted on a tip-off from foreign intelligence. One told Reuters news agency that the US had supplied the information.

“It [the plane] came from North Korea and was heading for somewhere in South Asia, probably Pakistan,” theofficial added.

328 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:24:40pm

re: #325 lazardo

And here I thought I was the only one here. My thesis for my industrial design major is a flood response boat for debris cleanup and rescue.

Don’t forget the cooler. Once the rescue is finished, i would guess that nothing goes with debris cleanup like cold malted hops. Besides, it’s a boat. Has to have beer.

329 KSK  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:24:54pm

He makes the assumption on the base that we don’t need to know whether it’s true. There’s the fallacy.

He puts the 4 different options at 25% probability each.
He also puts AGW or no AGW at 50% each.

And actually he omits two more possibilities:

5. GW is happening, but despite spending trillions the catastrophic event will happen anyway because it wasn’t man-made
6. In 20 years the Earth will start to cool (there may be events that we cannot foresee) and our actions will actually have contributed to that cooling

I would rather make a different case. At least some actions which are proposed to stop the presumed AGW are actually good for different reasons. Clean air, clean water, who’s against it? Clean water for everyone will actually be the major challenge in the next decades.

How if we spent our trillions to achieve tangible benefits for the 4 bn underprivileged people on Earth instead of wasting them on things that will make life for those 4 billions even harder?

330 ED 209  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:25:18pm

re: #262 steve

Well folks 0400 comes early so I have to go. It has been fun.
Warmed up to a balmy 34F today.

Good Night All!!!

uh-uh, it comes at the same time everday.
/

331 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:25:23pm

re: #301 albusteve

get rid of you car…seems logical enough, if your question is serious

Yes, well, if you could prove scientifically that immediate abandonment of all personal internal-combustion vehicles by Americans (excluding the rest of the world) would save the planet without fail, I’m afraid the planet would just have to go hang. This is what I mean when I talk about one person’s essentials being another’s luxuries, and vice versa. It’s the vice versa part that kills.

Thanks to the rest of you for your (now favorited) links.

As for mass transit, I currently live in a village that once had a rail link to a town from whence you could go to Boston or New York. That disappeared about eighty years ago. Nothing much I can do about that.

If I were still living in Baltimore, I would take mass transit starting the day when people who ride busses get covered shelters to wait in and not just a sign that says “bus stop” where you get splashed with dreck as the cars go by. Riding busses in Baltimore is a way to learn what “second-class citizen” means in practice.

332 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:25:52pm

re: #329 KSK

I’m beginning to get very tired of your relentless nonsense.

333 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:26:25pm

re: #328 Aceofwhat?

Don’t forget the cooler. Once the rescue is finished, i would guess that nothing goes with debris cleanup like cold malted hops. Besides, it’s a boat. Has to have beer.

In disposable aluminum cans/bottles? It would completely defeat the purpose if the debris came more from the boat than the floodwaters.

/on a side note, I am thinking of the possibility of an airboat configuration.

334 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:26:32pm

re: #329 KSK

Deniers coming out of the woodwork tonight.

335 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:26:34pm

re: #327 NJDhockeyfan

What are the Norks up to?

Thais seize plane filled with weapons

You have to wonder if they were headed to Myanmar, Pakistan, NE India, or Nepal. On the other hand maybe they were selling to the Uighurs in China.

336 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:27:06pm

Heart of the Sunrise by Yes

Youtube Video
337 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:27:09pm

re: #327 NJDhockeyfan

Just their normal economic activity…

Trade (2007): Exports—$1.684 billion: minerals, non-ferrous metals, garments, chemicals/plastics, machinery/electric and electronic products, animal products, wood products, vegetable products, and precious metals. The D.P.R.K. is also thought to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the unreported sale of missiles, narcotics, and counterfeit cigarettes, and other illicit activities.

From state.gov

338 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:27:44pm

re: #329 KSK

He also says if you don’t like it that simple then put some other costs vs risks columns in — did you have sudden wax buildup during that section?

339 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:27:47pm

The video is nice but fails to account for the founding fathers, the Constitution, Freedom, liberty and the New World Order.
/Ron Paul!

340 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:28:34pm

P.S. Thanks to Floral Giraffe who likes my stupid gardening/cooking links.

341 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:28:37pm

Tragedy. I just knocked over a 22oz. bottle of Fat Tire ale and lost about 14 ounces.

342 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:28:57pm

re: #338 Thanos

He also says if you don’t like it that simple then put some other costs vs risks columns in — did you have sudden wax buildup during that section?

This one has been posting a non-stop stream of denialist talking points, including trying to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

343 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:29:01pm

re: #339 Killgore Trout

The video is nice but fails to account for the founding fathers, the Constitution, Freedom, liberty and the New World Order.
/Ron Paul!

That’s so unfortunately the current reality that if you didn’t put that sarc tag I probably wouldn’t have known.

344 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:29:22pm

re: #343 recusancy

Heh.

345 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:29:22pm

re: #341 Gus 802

Tragedy. I just knocked over a 22oz. bottle of Fat Tire ale and lost about 14 ounces.

{{Gus}}

346 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:29:36pm

re: #332 Charles

I’m beginning to get very tired of your relentless nonsense.

Stealth flounce is my bet. He has ignored every effort to discuss fundamentals, even while complaining that they are being ignored.

347 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:29:39pm

re: #340 Killgore Trout

P.S. Thanks to Floral Giraffe who likes my stupid gardening/cooking links.

Who you calling stoopid?
;)

348 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:29:53pm

re: #331 Cato the Elder

I would also like to say that my city literally has too much public transit, as it were. It used to be that our main thoroughfares were crowded with jeepneys (which aren’t exactly the pinnacle of modern engineering.) When the light rail got installed, more people got jeepneys and even buses because they were losing customers. D:

349 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:29:59pm

re: #345 Racer X

{{Gus}}

Snif. Thanks man. I have an el cheapo back up.

350 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:30:02pm

re: #323 LudwigVanQuixote

So fusion really is over? No point in continuing R&D for that as a energy source?

351 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:30:45pm

re: #331 Cato the Elder

well you asked for little things someone could do.

Every american stopping driving won’t save us, but each person changing their habits helps a little bit, and the results are cumulative.

Thats kind of where we are. Each person can help a tiny bit, and each person can help a tiny bit more by being a positive influence. I know this sounds like Hippie crap, but there is a certain point to it. The governments aren’t doing much now, but each one that puts in meaningful reforms is putting a little bit more pressure on the others (except maybe China, I don’t know what the hell to do about them.)

Especially when doing these things can also actually save you money/help your health/whatever…

Wow, that was ranty, sorry!

352 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:30:45pm

re: #341 Gus 802

{{Gus}}
LOL!
Bummer, though…

353 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:31:10pm

re: #341 Gus 802

Tragedy. I just knocked over a 22oz. bottle of Fat Tire ale and lost about 14 ounces.

I’m assuming that happened because you have the tragic flaw of being drunk right now, so for once I’m not going to downding someone for misusing the word “tragedy”. I would see it that way if it happened to me.

354 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:31:10pm

re: #340 Killgore Trout

P.S. Thanks to Floral Giraffe who likes my stupid gardening/cooking links.

Ah, there are several of us who like them.
AND HERE’S A COLLECTION!

355 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:31:22pm

re: #350 Rightwingconspirator

So fusion really is over? No point in continuing R&D for that as a energy source?

Yep. Dead as a door-nail. See for yourself:

nextbigfuture.com

356 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:31:25pm

re: #347 Floral Giraffe
As long as one or two people enjoy them it’s good enough for me. This is still more popular than my Bollywood phase from a year or two ago.

357 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:31:33pm

re: #341 Gus 802

Tragedy. I just knocked over a 22oz. bottle of Fat Tire ale and lost about 14 ounces.

You shouldn’t post on the internet that you drink 22 oz bottles, but if you keep them in a brown paper bag they don’t fall over as easily and you can suck the spill from the paper if they do.

358 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:31:52pm

re: #351 windsagio

well you asked for little things someone could do.

Every american stopping driving won’t save us, but each person changing their habits helps a little bit, and the results are cumulative.

Thats kind of where we are. Each person can help a tiny bit, and each person can help a tiny bit more by being a positive influence. I know this sounds like Hippie crap, but there is a certain point to it. The governments aren’t doing much now, but each one that puts in meaningful reforms is putting a little bit more pressure on the others (except maybe China, I don’t know what the hell to do about them.)

Especially when doing these things can also actually save you money/help your health/whatever…

Wow, that was ranty, sorry!

At least Hippies actually stood for something. Hipsters on the other hand…

359 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:32:00pm

re: #350 Rightwingconspirator

So fusion really is over? No point in continuing R&D for that as a energy source?

no, cold fusion is a non-starter. Fusion power may still be practical, and research into it should continue.

360 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:32:37pm

re: #341 Gus 802

Party Foul.

361 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:32:38pm

re: #329 KSK

I’m bored. Booored.

362 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:32:52pm

re: #353 Cato the Elder

I’m assuming that happened because you have the tragic flaw of being drunk right now, so for once I’m not going to downding someone for misusing the word “tragedy”. I would see it that way if it happened to me.

Oops. Just opened it up so I am sober!

363 jaunte  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:33:34pm

re: #354 reine.de.tout

Ah, there are several of us who like them.
AND HERE’S A COLLECTION!

That sustainable fish list is also a good small step contribution that everyone (those who are fish eaters) can participate in.

364 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:33:56pm

One other thing I forgot to mention… almost every large power plant in the US has to have a cooling tower or other radiator whether coal, gas, oil, or Nuclear - if we could tap more of that waste heat puffed off as steam it would help.

365 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:34:24pm

There’s another one here when you get a chance. I grew a little bit of Salsify this year and really wish I’d planted more. It’s great stuff. Most people probably don’t know what it is but it’s fantastic and really easy to grow.

366 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:34:37pm

re: #340 Killgore Trout

P.S. Thanks to Floral Giraffe who likes my stupid gardening/cooking links.

But do you have a recipe for elephant?

367 Vicious Babushka  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:34:57pm

re: #351 windsagio

The governments aren’t doing much now, but each one that puts in meaningful reforms is putting a little bit more pressure on the others (except maybe China, I don’t know what the hell to do about them.)

Well, the Chinese claim they are doing their part with their population control polity.

368 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:35:04pm

re: #1 Cato the Elder

I’ve seen this before, and I’m relatively certain it was here at LGF, though not as a post. It’s a good argument.

Now, if someone could tell me what “immediate action” involves, and maybe send me a list of ten things to do immediately that don’t involve money I don’t have, I’d be grateful.

It’s not that good an argument. The defect is that if this argument automatically wins, all the guy arguing for whatever measures needs to do is paint the alternative to his favorite action as over the top bad.

There isn’t anything to do that comes without cost. Many of the things being advocated cost a lot and achieve nothing much. What we can do is think through the steps that if taken would make a difference, and then look at the costs of those. Some steps have quite modest costs. Suppose, just for example, that we can advance the science of solar energy to the point that it just beats coal. At that point, the problem of AGW is solved because nobody wants to burn coal anyhow.

If we can come fairly close, then we can abstain from coal without its costing us badly. In this scenario, our second best energy source, costwise, isn’t all that much more expensive.

Another point is that there are costs associated with putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere that aren’t in doubt. Extra CO2 acidifies the ocean. Period. Even a modest increase in temperatures causes sea levels to rise some. Again, the cost of that is calculable. We should put that against the cost of burning coal. Burning coal requires mining it, and that is costing a lot of lives. The pollution that comes with the burning costs more lives.

So we don’t have to come to even-steven, solar vs. coal, to make it economical to go with solar from the point of view of overall benefit.

369 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:35:08pm

re: #308 freetoken

You need to update your talking points, as even Lindzen, the proponent of “iris” effect and those nasty clouds is giving up on it.

On the catastrophe part, you skip over the entire paleoclimate record. During the previous interglacial periods, the Eemian roughly 100,000 years ago, and the previous interglacial before that, temperatures were just a bit warmer than today and yet sea levels were several feet higher. In other words, there is reason to believe that even modest temperature rises over today will lead to significant sea level rise.

As for the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 doubling, you are of course unwilling to admit to anything more than the purely radiative balance (which is near 1.2C), though again all the paleoclimatology data would indicate the sensitivity has to be more than that.

Finally, the models area hind-cast to the entire 20th century record and unlike your assertion, those were observations, and indeed the models do reproduce the 20th century fairly well. The three generations of models have shown progress on this matter, and the third generation handles the major changes as well as the volcanic influences very well.

Your right, the science is more nuance than your current grasp.

They’re not “talking points.” And I don’t pay particular attention to Lindzen although I am familiar with his Iris effect theory. I was actually referring to Dr. Spencer’s research into cloud cover changes. Dr. Spencer is (supposedly) a creationist and therefore his research is not valid here per Charles IIRC, despite the inclusion of his work in the IPCC and the fact that he is part of the team to create the first satellite measurements of climate (UAH). His research is what I was referring to.

Moving on to the substance of your post, I’ve never seen that connection made between past interglacial sea levels and temperatures. I know that sea levels were higher during past interglacials, but I’ve yet to see a correlation between temperatures and sea levels in a study that applies to the modern climate. Can you post the material that you’re referring to? I’m able to read most journals so no worries if it’s subscriber only. I’m not infallible, so I’m perfectly willing to grant that there is some correlation that I am unaware of. I just have never read it nor seen it referenced in the IPCC, so I am a bit confused as to what you are talking about. I’d need to read what studies you’re referring to before responding.

On your second point, I’m not unwilling to believe that positive feedbacks exist. Some, such as alterations in albedo, are logical and falsifiable. I’m just not convinced that our current modeling of the feedbacks is accurate. To put it another way, if we understood the climate system perfectly (not just feedbacks, but things like ENSO & solar flares), it stands to reason that our climate models would be incredibly accurate. They are not, thus far. Therefore, there’s a lack of information somewhere in the chain.

On your final point, I’m aware that climate models go backwards to make sure they replicate past climate changes. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are able to forecast. Ask any financial modeler that. And I would recommend that you look closely at the predictions of the 15 GCMs that the IPCC utilizes. There is an incredibly wide range in their predictions. For the lay person, it’d be like going to 15 doctors and 3 saying you’re going to be 7’2 and 3 saying you’re going to be 5’11 and the other 9 somewhere in between. The fact that the mean is 6’6 kind of hides the fact that there is an incredibly wide variance in the predictions.

370 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:35:41pm

re: #363 jaunte

That sustainable fish list is also a good small step contribution that everyone (those who are fish eaters) can participate in.

mmm…pacific sardines…

371 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:36:02pm

re: #356 Killgore Trout

Yes, I would concur!
Bollywood.
*shudders*

372 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:36:07pm

re: #366 NJDhockeyfan

I did eat elephant biltong (kinda like beef jerky) in South Africa. Chewy but nice.

373 Jaerik  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:36:14pm

I think Charles is correct, provided I’m understanding him right:

The deniers have so managed to use up 100% of the public discourse with whether or not AGW even exists, that there isn’t nearly as much research and effort going into figuring out what to do about it as there should be.

As long as the debate is stuck back in the anti-science dark ages, there’s no bandwidth left to really objectively determine what the impact on the economy and our lifestyles will be. So this crude version of Game Theory is the best we can do.

The next step — figuring out exactly how it will impact the economy and what we can realistically accomplish — will be just as tough to objectively hash out, and require all the brainpower we have at our disposal. But we need to move the debate forward to get there. As long as we’re willing to entertain the argument that the whole thing might not even exist, we’re screwed.

374 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:36:38pm

re: #357 Naso Tang

And you know this, how?
Youtube linky?
LOL!

375 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:36:40pm

re: #355 ryannon

Whoops I meant regular tokamak or laser ignited fusion. Heh. I sold palladium wire to labs trying to replicate the experiment those years ago.

376 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:37:02pm

re: #364 Thanos

I’m too lazy to do a serious search, do you know of any meaningful developments along that line?

re: #358 lazardo

Oh, god. They’re a goddamn plague here. its awful!

377 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:37:27pm

re: #372 Killgore Trout

I did eat elephant biltong (kinda like beef jerky) in South Africa. Chewy but nice.

What part of the elephant is the biltong?

378 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:37:39pm

re: #365 Killgore Trout

There’s another one here when you get a chance. I grew a little bit of Salsify this year and really wish I’d planted more. It’s great stuff. Most people probably don’t know what it is but it’s fantastic and really easy to grow.

Got it!

379 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:38:00pm

re: #357 Naso Tang

You shouldn’t post on the internet that you drink 22 oz bottles, but if you keep them in a brown paper bag they don’t fall over as easily and you can suck the spill from the paper if they do.

It’s a bomber. Guess my head is still spinning from my morning sneezing. I think it’s all the humidity from the previous snows. Yesterday is smelled like the Belt Parkway in 1964 nearby Invesco Field.

380 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:38:01pm

re: #350 Rightwingconspirator

So fusion really is over? No point in continuing R&D for that as a energy source?

No not at all. Hot fusion works. We have had it in an uncontrolled form since the 50’s, that is a hydrogen bomb, and it is the process that fuels stars in nature.

It is another fact of the universe that if you get light nuclei close enough together, that they will fuse and release huge amounts of energy.

The problem is that nuclei are positively charged and like repells like. You have to push them really really hard. That takes a lot of energy and that is the overcoming the Coulomb potential thing I was talking about.

Stars do it by having so much mass that gravity squeezes the nuclei together. Hydrogen bombs squeeze them using the shockwave of an atom bomb. Hot fusion experiments use either very powerful magnetic fields in what are called tokomaks, or they use very large honking lasers.

Cold fusion assumes that some electro chemical reaction, which just simply does not have the energy to do it promotes the squeezing.

Sort form hot fusion real. Cold fusion fraud.

381 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:38:02pm

re: #369 kf

Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist — not “supposedly.” And if you prefer to get your scientific “knowledge” from creationists, your opinions will be treated with exactly the respect they deserve, i.e., none.

382 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:38:08pm

re: #378 reine.de.tout

Wow, you’re quick. Much thanks.

383 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:38:29pm

re: #368 lostlakehiker

There’s also the cost of cooling for their constituents that Red State Senators and Congresscritters fail to calc. Even a 1 degree rise in temperature for Southern states creates dramatic demand for energy, and visible costs to their constituents over a year.

384 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:38:52pm

re: #377 NJDhockeyfan

Whoa. We are all going to see that answer…
:)

385 cliffster  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:39:08pm

re: #365 Killgore Trout

There’s another one here when you get a chance. I grew a little bit of Salsify this year and really wish I’d planted more. It’s great stuff. Most people probably don’t know what it is but it’s fantastic and really easy to grow.

I had cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers, and eggplant that were all trucking along nicely when a crazy-ass freeze hit central texas. Very irritating, because as long as I remember, I’ve never seen a freeze like this before mid January, and it picked the winter I’m growing good shit to hit. Whatever, lettuce and broccoli are real happy. So we’ll go with that. Still got lots of yummy cucumbers in the fridge.

386 KingKenrod  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:39:59pm

re: #367 Alouette

Well, the Chinese claim they are doing their part with their population control polity.

Which is why Craven doesn’t automatically get to put a smiley face in the “Yes” column. You must define the cost of acting.

387 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:40:07pm

re: #374 Floral Giraffe

And you know this, how?
Youtube linky?
LOL!

I drive certain parts of town from time to time.

388 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:40:55pm

re: #379 Gus 802

It’s a bomber. Guess my head is still spinning from my morning sneezing. I think it’s all the humidity from the previous snows. Yesterday is smelled like the Belt Parkway in 1964 nearby Invesco Field.

Yeah yeah, they all say that.

389 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:40:55pm

re: #369 kf

We don’t have to understand them “perfectly” to understand large, long term macro effects, just as we don’t have to measure to the nanometer to saw lumber.

390 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:41:06pm

re: #368 lostlakehiker

Suppose, just for example, that we can advance the science of solar energy to the point that it just beats coal. At that point, the problem of AGW is solved because nobody wants to burn coal anyhow.

I am reminded of Will Rogers’s solution to the problem of German submarines during World War II.

“It’s simple,” he said. “All you have to do is boil the ocean. Now, I’ve given you the answer, you gentlemen get to work and figure out the details.”

Get solar to the point where it can replace coal for lighting cities, running factories and other things that many people consider essential, and you will have accomplished something major.

I’ve given you the solution, folks. Get to work.

391 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:41:32pm

re: #381 Charles

Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist — not “supposedly.” And if you prefer to get your scientific “knowledge” from creationists, your opinions will be treated with exactly the respect they deserve, i.e., none.

I’m not disagreeing with the point that you hate a scientist for being a creationist (that’s sound in my opinion), I’m disagreeing with the fact that you throw out all of his research. Are you suggesting that we discard and never reference the UAH satellite data of the past 30 years? If RSS data didn’t exist, you’d basically throw out the most precise temperature measurements we have because a creationist was credited with its genesis (no pun intended).

392 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:42:41pm

re: #390 Cato the Elder

Get solar to the point where it can replace coal for lighting cities, running factories and other things that many people consider essential, and you will have accomplished something major.

I’ve given you the solution, folks. Get to work.

Gee- that’s so simple, why didn’t anyone think of that before? ///

393 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:42:55pm

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

Wasn’t the Tokamak at Stanford starting to show promise right about the time of Three Mile Island? I heard they turned it off the next day.

394 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:43:09pm

re: #379 Gus 802

It’s a bomber. Guess my head is still spinning from my morning sneezing. I think it’s all the humidity from the previous snows. Yesterday is smelled like the Belt Parkway in 1964 nearby Invesco Field.

Dude. Pour. Stopper and refrigerate remaining. Enjoy. Retrieve remaining. Pour. Enjoy.

Bottles are for Bud. Your Tire needs a glass. Hooray, flavor!

395 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:43:33pm

re: #336 Racer X

Thank you for posting that!
I’ve heard a lot of their music, never seen a video before!

396 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:44:03pm

re: #390 Cato the Elder

I am reminded of Will Rogers’s solution to the problem of German submarines during World War II.

“It’s simple,” he said. “All you have to do is boil the ocean. Now, I’ve given you the answer, you gentlemen get to work and figure out the details.”

Get solar to the point where it can replace coal for lighting cities, running factories and other things that many people consider essential, and you will have accomplished something major.

I’ve given you the solution, folks. Get to work.

Environazi!

///

397 jaunte  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:44:35pm

Spain Brings On Stream Europe’s Largest Thermosolar Station

The technology of helio-thermodynamism is more productive than electricity production via the photovoltaic — or solar panels — method, according to Ruiz. He says it is the only means of providing power on the scale of fossil energy reactors as Spain goes big on the idea of concentrated solar power (CSP).
The first section of the site is ready for inauguration, and once up and running in the coming months it will have an 11 megawatt (MW) capacity, slightly more than its 10-megawatts counterpart at Pocking in Germany, which to date is Europe’s largest solar energy producer.
Sanlucar La Mayor will ultimately overtake that as Spain plans to build eight reactors with an overall capacity of 302 MW by 2010. When all eight are on stream that would be sufficient electricity to supply 180,000 homes, the equivalent of a city such as Seville itself.


solarnavigator.net

398 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:44:53pm

re: #395 Floral Giraffe

Thank you for posting that!
I’ve heard a lot of their music, never seen a video before!

You’re welcome!

I’ve been listening to them all night. Currently:

And You and I by Yes

Youtube Video
399 gerard150  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:44:56pm

Let’s do nothing and then twenty years from now we can look back and see how stupid some alarmist were. Climate change has nothing to do with climate, or weather, or pollution. It is an attempt by some to grow government and take control of others.

400 windsagio  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:46:01pm

re: #399 gerard150

did you not see what happened with the first 384 people that posted essentially the exact same thing on here?

401 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:46:14pm

They’re threatening me again at the stalker blog, by the way.

Image: ZZ21839D36.jpg

Image: ZZ250B50D4.jpg

Image: ZZ626CBABF.jpg

402 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:46:40pm

re: #399 gerard150

You don’t post much here, do you?

Registered since: Nov 27, 2007 at 6:55 pm
No. of comments posted: 4
No. of links posted: 2

403 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:46:49pm

re: #385 cliffster

I tried cucumbers this year and failed miserably. I got a few measly misshapen cukes, enough to make a salad or two. Not sure what went wrong.

404 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:46:59pm

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

Okay that is about what I thought. As I understand they still take more power to start and run than they get out, falling short of break even. Maybe that can be described to me as a %?

Where I work we use a lot of hydrogen. Maybe 36 of the large size tanks from the supplier a week. I have done a ton of reading on hydrogen combustion etc. I know it takes more energy to split water than you get out when you reburn the gases. Short of break even, right?

My point is which “break even” is closer to practical, given the benefit of zero carbon heat.

405 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:47:54pm

re: #401 Charles

Wow, they’re really wound up lately.

406 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:48:09pm

re: #390 Cato the Elder

I am reminded of Will Rogers’s solution to the problem of German submarines during World War II.

“It’s simple,” he said. “All you have to do is boil the ocean. Now, I’ve given you the answer, you gentlemen get to work and figure out the details.”

Get solar to the point where it can replace coal for lighting cities, running factories and other things that many people consider essential, and you will have accomplished something major.

I’ve given you the solution, folks. Get to work.

He would have said that in reference to WWI, Cato. Will Rogers died before WWII began. His son, Will Jr., was a Congressman at the start of the war, then resigned to join the Army. Bill Rogers (as Will Jr preferred to be called) commanded a platoon of M10 Tank Destroyers during the Battle of the Bulge.

407 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:48:31pm

re: #331 Cato the Elder


If I were still living in Baltimore, I would take mass transit starting the day when people who ride busses get covered shelters to wait in and not just a sign that says “bus stop” where you get splashed with dreck as the cars go by. Riding busses in Baltimore is a way to learn what “second-class citizen” means in practice.

Some years ago I went on a giant job hunt in much of Contra Costa County. Buses, I discovered, run very infrequently, and I would often be the only person on the bus who wasn’t Latina. It was a very interesting experience.

408 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:48:52pm

Advanced Tokamak fusion power.

409 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:49:00pm

re: #401 Charles

It’s love.

/

410 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:49:05pm

re: #399 gerard150

First comment in two years. Have you been sleeping under a tree somewhere?

411 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:49:13pm

re: #306 kf

Charles the ocean is rising at 3mm per annum, sans acceleration. Sea level rise in and of itself isn’t particularly noteworthy since we are in an interglacial period. I realize you’re just trying to make a point, but it’s just a tiny bit silly.

You can inspect the sea-level changes at sealevel.colorado.edu

Acceleration is in the cards. But think about it. 3mm/year=30 cm/century will, after all, cost us 30 meters of land all along the coast, assuming a 1 percent grade. More, if the grade is shallower, as it often is in the most valuable river delta croplands. And that cost will be doubled the next century, and the next.

That’s actually a fair amount of land. Don’t blow it off as trivial. Or “kind of silly”. But this greatly underestimates the problem. The Greenland ice cap is going to melt. At any rate, a lot of it is. Now we’re talking several meters sea rise. That means scores of miles, or worse.

412 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:49:21pm

re: #399 gerard150

Let’s do nothing and then twenty years from now we can look back and see how stupid some alarmist were. Climate change has nothing to do with climate, or weather, or pollution. It is an attempt by some to grow government and take control of others.

Right, because were never going to run out of fossil fuels. Your AMC Eagle is leaking, by the way. You should prolly run out into the driveway and check on that.

413 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:49:21pm

re: #403 Killgore Trout

I tried cucumbers this year and failed miserably. I got a few measly misshapen cukes, enough to make a salad or two. Not sure what went wrong.

All my broccoli went straight to flowers this year. The last 6 years they were perfect.

414 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:49:25pm

re: #406 Dark_Falcon

re: #401 Charles

That would be the result of a very successful interview with Alan Colmes I would think.

415 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:50:14pm

re: #401 Charles

They’re threatening me again at the stalker blog, by the way.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Nice. I know my advice is superfluous, but don’t hesitate to call the police if one of those assholes accosts you.

416 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:50:56pm

re: #279 Aceofwhat?

this wasn’t Pascal’s wager, it was an invitation to open a discussion about risk management probability theory

The majority of the video was “you get to choose columns, not rows, so choose the column that lets you avoid this really really bad square.” He spent only a few seconds mentioning the idea of adding in probabilities to the table and doing risk management, and that was near the end. His position is more sophisticated than Pascal’s Wager, but the vast majority of this specific presentation was vintage PW.

In my experience, people’s reaction to PW is to assume that whoever made the argument isn’t worth talking to any further, and tune them out. Seriously, rewatch the video and imagine you were confused about the science. Think about how far you would make it before you decided “this guy is just feeding me a line of bull. There’s no science here, it’s just Pascal’s Wager.”

It’s important to present our arguments in effective ways (not like my first post in this thread; that post sucked.) I think this particular presentation is worse than ineffective; I think people who are honestly confused are likely to get partway through it and decide that it’s not worth watching any of the other, better videos and articles Charles has posted (just like people reading my first post might get a paragraph in and decide it’s not worth reading anything else I wrote.)

417 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:51:23pm

What’s a rooster booger?

418 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:51:36pm

re: #391 kf

I’m not disagreeing with the point that you hate a scientist for being a creationist (that’s sound in my opinion),

Is that a suck up attempt (that’s sound)? Nobody hates any creationists. They just can’t be taken seriously in any new field since they have shown a complete lack of understanding in another, to the point of denying the obvious.

If your surgeon to be told you that he believed in astrology, but it had no effect on his skills with a scalpel, would you look elsewhere or just say, OK cut away?

419 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:51:51pm

re: #389 Thanos

We don’t have to understand them “perfectly” to understand large, long term macro effects, just as we don’t have to measure to the nanometer to saw lumber.

You’re right, but we’re talking about making policy decisions based upon models of the world 91 years from today. If the models have gone off the track during the first 9, what does that say for their reliability over the next 91?

I’m not against good legislation that focuses on decarbonizing our economy. As has been said many, many times (multiple times in this thread), it’s a good thing regardless of what the climate is doing. I am just personally not convinced, after poring over data, reading the IPCC report, etc., that we should be doing it because a climate catastrophe is imminent. I think there are far too many holes that need to be plugged up first. The overreliance on tree rings in temperature reconstructions (compounded by the divergence problem in the mid 20th century), the asymmetry of temperature change between the north pole and the south pole (the fact that the south pole is gaining or staying constant in ice mass, while the north pole is losing ice mass), the lack of changes in sea levels that were predicted to happen, and finally the accuracy of the assumptions within the temperature models.

Contrary to the perception that every person who is even remotely skeptical of an upcoming climate catastrophe, I’m actually very open minded to being wrong. I don’t think the same can be said for the vast majority of people in this debate. To be blunt, I think Charles is becoming a bit close-minded as well. There’s merit to the points that I raise above Charles.

420 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:51:55pm

Just to add a new power source to the fray with some trivia…

The Philippines is the world’s second-largest consumer of geothermal energy.

421 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:52:26pm

re: #413 NJDhockeyfan

I’ve had that happen before too. I grew purple broccoli this year. Very tasty and pretty. I still have a little left out in the garden but we’ve been frozen solid here for more than a week. It’s probably all spent by now

422 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:52:53pm

re: #417 NJDhockeyfan

What’s a rooster booger?

A gay rooster.

423 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:53:05pm

re: #401 Charles

Ugh that is really hateful.

424 Summer Seale  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:53:09pm

re: #399 gerard150

Let’s do nothing and then twenty years from now we can look back and see how stupid some alarmist were. Climate change has nothing to do with climate, or weather, or pollution. It is an attempt by some to grow government and take control of others.

Psst…don’t forget to blame the Jews. These kinda things never really take hold without blaming the Jews. Although, today, you can say “World Bankers” or “a cabal”, or “neo-cons” or something like that.

425 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:53:27pm

re: #419 kf

To be blunt, I think Charles is becoming a bit close-minded as well. There’s merit to the points that I raise above Charles.

Hilarious. Someone who gets their global warming talking points from a creationist accusing me of being “close-minded.”

Gotta love that.

426 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:54:10pm

re: #421 Killgore Trout

I’ve had that happen before too. I grew purple broccoli this year. Very tasty and pretty. I still have a little left out in the garden but we’ve been frozen solid here for more than a week. It’s probably all spent by now

I had the best corn I ever had this year. It was the sweetest juiciest corn ever.

427 cliffster  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:54:45pm

Rooster booger. huh.

428 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:55:18pm

re: #417 NJDhockeyfan

What’s a rooster booger?

[insert cock joke here]

429 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:55:26pm

re: #419 kf

The models haven’t gone “off the tracks”, it’s still warmer than it should be even accounting for El Nino and the solar somnolence we are seeing.

430 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:55:36pm

re: #427 cliffster

Rooster booger. huh.

Who keeps rooster boogers in their pocket?

431 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:56:15pm

Can evolutionary biology save us?

New research and development to improve production of clean energy from biofuels

News from Arizona State University describes the research led by Dr. Jeffrey Touchman directed to obtain a deeper understanding of the evolution of the photosynthesis. His studies are focused in the genetic, evolutionary gap that separates extremophiles (organisms that thrive in extreme conditions like in hot springs or submarine mid-ocean ridge thermal vents) and photosynthetic microbes.

The genetic study of these organisms should provide better insight into more efficient methods and technologies to obtain clean energy from algae and other biofuels.

432 cliffster  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:56:33pm

re: #401 Charles

Creepy. Sorry.

433 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:56:36pm

re: #390 Cato the Elder

I am reminded of Will Rogers’s solution to the problem of German submarines during World War II.

“It’s simple,” he said. “All you have to do is boil the ocean. Now, I’ve given you the answer, you gentlemen get to work and figure out the details.”

Get solar to the point where it can replace coal for lighting cities, running factories and other things that many people consider essential, and you will have accomplished something major.

I’ve given you the solution, folks. Get to work.

Can we have some R&D seed money, please?

434 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:56:37pm

re: #417 NJDhockeyfan

What’s a rooster booger?

you don’t want to know. The latest thread over at The Deuce is devoted to praising an obnoxious flounce from early this morning. Apparently, Blogmocracy = Has No Life.

435 recusancy  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:57:08pm

OT: Any lovers of Zach Galifianakis? Check out his series Between Two Ferns.

436 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:57:15pm

KF: It’s also perfectly reasonable and correct to toss out all data from a “scientist” who’s been discredited. Witness the false cloning claim in SK and what happened to that guy.
Spencer is a Zealot willing to lie for his cause and he can’t be trusted.

437 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:57:25pm

Snort more cocaine and the rainforest dies

Don’t sniff: cocaine users are killing the planet. Every time they snort a line, part of the rainforest dies — or so say the police in a new campaign against drugs.

They hope that appealing to young people’s environmental concerns will prove more effective than urging them to “just say no” to drugs. Linking with Greenpeace, the police plan to spread the message that for every gram of cocaine made, four square metres of rainforest are destroyed.

Chris Pearson, drug analyst at the Metropolitan police’s intelligence bureau, said: “The cocaine trade is destroying the rainforest. Young people don’t tend to listen to the police, but they might listen to Greenpeace and they might listen to their peers.”

I wonder what Jerry Garcia would say?

438 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:58:31pm

re: #437 NJDhockeyfan

Snort more cocaine and the rainforest dies

I wonder what Jerry Garcia would say?

I don’t know but that’d make Lil Wayne real depressed.

439 Jaerik  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:59:02pm

re: #393 Racer X

Wasn’t the Tokamak at Stanford starting to show promise right about the time of Three Mile Island? I heard they turned it off the next day.

The best we’ve done is at the JET (Joint European Tourus). It’s managed to get around 16 megawatts out for 24 megawatts in. The ratio has been steadily approaching “break-even” for awhile now, but they’ll likely be unable to reach it with JET.

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is under construction and expected to be pretty much the “either we get to break-even or we don’t” experiment.

(By the way, anyone else depressed by the fact all the coolest experiments in both theoretical physics and energy production are happening in other countries, now? LHC, etc. Where did the US’s scientific/technological leadership go?)

440 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:59:25pm

re: #401 Charles

They’re threatening me again at the stalker blog, by the way.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

That’s some kinda scary stuff, there.

441 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:59:36pm

re: #342 Charles

This one has been posting a non-stop stream of denialist talking points, including trying to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

“It’s natural. The Indians used it.”

/sorry, I think that was peyote. But you get my point.

442 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:00:42pm

re: #434 Dark_Falcon

you don’t want to know. The latest thread over at The Deuce is devoted to praising an obnoxious flounce from early this morning. Apparently, Blogmocracy = Has No Life.

So let me guess…they are signing up here just to see who can have a better flounce. Is that it?

443 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:00:43pm

KSK is out of here. I just checked out the bullshit it’s been posting in a previous thread, and I’m not going to let LGF be used to spread this crap any more.

444 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:01:34pm

Who KSK?

445 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:02:03pm

re: #431 Sharmuta

Can evolutionary biology save us?

New research and development to improve production of clean energy from biofuels

It’s got a better chance of doing so than God does.

/at least until PETA starts complaining about all the poor little microorganisms.

446 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:02:22pm

re: #416 LotharBot

The majority of the video was “you get to choose columns, not rows, so choose the column that lets you avoid this really really bad square.” He spent only a few seconds mentioning the idea of adding in probabilities to the table and doing risk management, and that was near the end. His position is more sophisticated than Pascal’s Wager, but the vast majority of this specific presentation was vintage PW.

In my experience, people’s reaction to PW is to assume that whoever made the argument isn’t worth talking to any further, and tune them out. Seriously, rewatch the video and imagine you were confused about the science. Think about how far you would make it before you decided “this guy is just feeding me a line of bull. There’s no science here, it’s just Pascal’s Wager.”

It’s important to present our arguments in effective ways (not like my first post in this thread; that post sucked.) I think this particular presentation is worse than ineffective; I think people who are honestly confused are likely to get partway through it and decide that it’s not worth watching any of the other, better videos and articles Charles has posted (just like people reading my first post might get a paragraph in and decide it’s not worth reading anything else I wrote.)

It’s not exactly Pascal’s wager, because the probabilities with this wager can be quantified enough to where it becomes a logical conclusion that the expected value of the safe column is better. But it’s too close to that to be a really good argument.

447 freetoken  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:02:47pm

re: #391 kf

Your conflating the peer-reviewed and subsequently supported work of Dr. Spencer vs. his other allegations.

This is classic… and pertains to Dr. Lindzen as well. Indeed, it pertains to Isaac Newton too. Many times an individual can make meaningful contributions during their lives, then, later (and it is usually later as they age), go off into la-la land.

As for your statement about the IPCC and sea levels, as you ought to be aware, in their fourth report they explicitly state that they ignored changes due to ice-cap melting because there was no consensus on the amount to expect during the targeted timeframe… not that it doesn’t exist, and not that we can’t expect melting from Greenland and WAIS.

That there is concern about sea level rise because in the previous two interglacials sea levels were higher while also temperatures peaked at slightly higher temperatures than today, is not a complex hypothesis that is being proposed. It is a concern based upon observations. As you well know, if you follow any of the discussions about ice melt, there is lots of research on this topic currently. Last week I posted a link to the latest (and rather hefty) report from the British Antarctic Survey, which goes into detail about climate change in Antarctica. Thus it is both reasonable to be concerned about sea level rise from melting ice-caps (based on the paleoclimatology) and a matter of intense current research.

As for the large coupled climate models used by the IPCC for projections… yes, a great diversity of models. What you didn’t mention though is that all of them agree with the general trend. Also, the nature of predicting a chaotic system that also has random input means that the approach taken to predictions is never the kind of certainty the layman requires of their daily mundane routines, such as turning on the faucet and expecting water to flow out of the tap. The IPCC and anyone else who is legitimate readily recognize the probabilistic nature of the prediction scheme. That is why error bars, or in the case of most graphs, shaded areas are included on either side of the mean output of the models, based on repeated runs of the models to allow for randomness and chaos.

What you are demonstrating for us here on LGF is that you are well educated, but not being complete and open about the entire truth. This is the same sin, if you will allow me to use that term, that Spencer exhibits.

448 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:02:53pm

re: #442 NJDhockeyfan

So let me guess…they are signing up here just to see who can have a better flounce. Is that it?

Yep. One of them (Speranza) is openly boasting of his plans to flounce. That man need professional help, since he seems to spend his life obsessing about Charles.

449 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:03:20pm

re: #444 BigPapa

Who KSK?

You didn’t miss anything. He was equal parts boring and BS. Makes for a flouncerrific combination.

450 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:03:56pm
Honey, I Blew up the Tokamak

Magnetic reconnection could be the Universe’s favorite way to make things explode. It operates anywhere magnetic fields pervade space—which is to say almost everywhere. On the sun magnetic reconnection causes solar flares as powerful as a billion atomic bombs. In Earth’s atmosphere, it fuels magnetic storms and auroras. In laboratories, it can cause big problems in fusion reactors. It’s ubiquitous.

The problem is, researchers can’t explain it.

The basics are clear enough. Magnetic lines of force cross, cancel, reconnect and—Bang! Magnetic energy is unleashed in the form of heat and charged-particle kinetic energy.

But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion?

Man, there is so much we don’t know.

451 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:04:02pm

re: #444 BigPapa

Who KSK?

Someone who doesn’t post here anymore.

452 lazardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:04:55pm

Gonna go get lunch. Cheers.

453 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:05:24pm

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

No not at all. Hot fusion works. We have had it in an uncontrolled form since the 50’s, that is a hydrogen bomb, and it is the process that fuels stars in nature.

It is another fact of the universe that if you get light nuclei close enough together, that they will fuse and release huge amounts of energy.

The problem is that nuclei are positively charged and like repells like. You have to push them really really hard. That takes a lot of energy and that is the overcoming the Coulomb potential thing I was talking about.

Stars do it by having so much mass that gravity squeezes the nuclei together. Hydrogen bombs squeeze them using the shockwave of an atom bomb. Hot fusion experiments use either very powerful magnetic fields in what are called tokomaks, or they use very large honking lasers.

Cold fusion assumes that some electro chemical reaction, which just simply does not have the energy to do it promotes the squeezing.

Sort form hot fusion real. Cold fusion fraud.

What’s the motivation behind the fraud? Idiot pseudo-scientists wanting to be taken seriously? Scratching for grants? Basic human stupidity? I know you can cite the laws which negate this possibility, but what do you do with the very recent peer-reviewed scientific publications (including a compendium published by the Oxford University Press) or mainstream events such as the American Chemical Society Conference on the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction/Cold Fusion Work?

nextbigfuture.com

Are these people the Ronald McDonalds of the scientific world? Flat-Earthers? Or just misguided, mediocre, second-zone types looking for a bit of collective self-esteem? Can you bring yourself to actually watch this video and respond to it, or is your mind definitively made up?

Escape clause: Since you may think that this whole subject is so preposterous as to be beneath being taken seriously. please feel free to drop it right here and now. Your silence will be taken as a reply in that sense - with no hard feelings on my part.

454 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:06:35pm

re: #448 Dark_Falcon

Yep. One of them (Speranza) is openly boasting of his plans to flounce. That man need professional help, since he seems to spend his life obsessing about Charles.

When you spend your time planning to get kicked off a website, it’s a sign you really have no life. Those who cheer that person on also have no lives. They all deserve each other.

455 Stuart Leviton  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:06:38pm

re: #29 LudwigVanQuixote

This is exactly the point. Consider it a sort of pascal’s wager. If, I am wrong, worst case is we waste money. If I am right worst case is money and civilization as we know it disappears in the wake of hundreds of millions of deaths, spread of contagion, starvation and war - not to mention our coastal cities.

But it is not just a 50/50 in the row thinking. It’s not even close.


Ludwig, I love you, man. I think the AGW crowd would stack the deck. They would assign 100% to row A and 0% to row B. I admire your creativity and brilliance but no cigar this time (though I’ll give you an up-ding anyway).

456 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:07:25pm

re: #411 lostlakehiker

Acceleration is in the cards. But think about it. 3mm/year=30 cm/century will, after all, cost us 30 meters of land all along the coast, assuming a 1 percent grade. More, if the grade is shallower, as it often is in the most valuable river delta croplands. And that cost will be doubled the next century, and the next.

That’s actually a fair amount of land. Don’t blow it off as trivial. Or “kind of silly”. But this greatly underestimates the problem. The Greenland ice cap is going to melt. At any rate, a lot of it is. Now we’re talking several meters sea rise. That means scores of miles, or worse.

re: #411 lostlakehiker

Beyond just satellite measurements, we also have rough ground measurements of sea level changes going back decades. There has not been an acceleration. Further, the current changes in sea level are not out of the ordinary. In terms of natural changes, sea levels have increased dramatically since the last ice age and will continue to increase (slowly) until our next one.

As far as your second paragraph, a time frame is needed. I would suggest this study to you: colorado.edu which explains that incredibly high predictions for sea level changes are physically imposssibl.

457 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:07:42pm

re: #450 Racer X

Mastering magnetism looks to me to be the next fundamental new tech, like nuclear got us past mere combustion or electricity.

458 cliffster  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:08:23pm

re: #450 Racer X

Man, there is so much we don’t know.

Why would crossing magnetic fields cause an explosion? Why is my wife angry at me? It’s all such a mystery.

459 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:08:33pm

Ha! Just looked at Twitter for LGF. The poor fools have gone over the edge. I’ve never seen so many low lifes and adults acting like children.

460 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:09:21pm

re: #458 cliffster

Whoa. Maybe wives are the energy answer?

461 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:10:19pm

re: #458 cliffster

Why would crossing magnetic fields cause an explosion? Why is my wife angry at me? It’s all such a mystery.

Do not cross the streams!

462 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:10:39pm

re: #459 Gus 802

Ha! Just looked at Twitter for LGF. The poor fools have gone over the edge. I’ve never seen so many low lifes and adults acting like children.

It’s really pathetic. But I’m glad I was able to give meaning and a sense of purpose to so many empty lives.

463 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:10:42pm

re: #454 NJDhockeyfan

When you spend your time planning to get kicked off a website, it’s a sign you really have no life. Those who cheer that person on also have no lives. They all deserve each other.

Yep. that’s why i love telling them that i’m bored. it’s equal measures true and curt.

464 cliffster  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:11:06pm

re: #460 Rightwingconspirator

Whoa. Maybe wives are the energy answer?

Now I know what her and her buddies have been talking about in hushed whispers on the phone.

465 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:11:52pm

re: #457 Rightwingconspirator

Mastering magnetism looks to me to be the next fundamental new tech, like nuclear got us past mere combustion or electricity.

The one thing that will change everything is understanding magnetism. Earth’s magnetic field is way weaker than it should be. No one knows why. Can you imagine how things will change dramatically - overnight - if someone invents a gravity battery?

Woo-Hoo! I’ll finally get my flying car!

466 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:13:12pm

re: #459 Gus 802

Ha! Just looked at Twitter for LGF. The poor fools have gone over the edge. I’ve never seen so many low lifes and adults acting like children.

What in the world are they freaking out about this time?

467 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:13:22pm

re: #462 Charles

It’s really pathetic. But I’m glad I was able to give meaning and a sense of purpose to so many empty lives.

If I didn’t see it before my very eyes… I mean, some of them have their own portraits and they look like normal people on the outside. But when you read their Tweets, comments, and blogs it’s like peering into the mind of a mad man. They remind me of some of the people we ran into when we were kids and moved into a bad neighborhood.

468 cliffster  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:13:38pm

re: #465 Racer X

That simplifies column A in the topical video..

469 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:13:41pm

night all. Eastern Standard Time can be a harsh mistress.

470 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:14:15pm

re: #466 Sharmuta

What in the world are they freaking out about this time?

Some stupid post by the white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain and that calendar video stupidity.

471 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:14:32pm

re: #459 Gus 802

Ha! Just looked at Twitter for LGF. The poor fools have gone over the edge. I’ve never seen so many low lifes and adults acting like children.

I have never been to Twitter for LGF. In fact I have no idea how to get there. I would rather read LGF instead of Twitter anyway.

472 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:15:06pm

re: #456 kf

re: #411 lostlakehiker

Beyond just satellite measurements, we also have rough ground measurements of sea level changes going back decades. There has not been an acceleration. Further, the current changes in sea level are not out of the ordinary. In terms of natural changes, sea levels have increased dramatically since the last ice age and will continue to increase (slowly) until our next one.

As far as your second paragraph, a time frame is needed. I would suggest this study to you: [Link: www.colorado.edu…] which explains that incredibly high predictions for sea level changes are physically imposssibl.

This is more nonsense. Anyone who wants to find out the truth about current and projected sea level rises can start here:

google.com

473 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:15:52pm

re: #470 Gus 802

I love all the free publicity for the calendar!

474 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:16:05pm

I gamed this out with a writer friend. This would be a technology ceramic and plastic based, rather than metals. Otherwise induced current would fry the walls. Metals would be a safety hazard.

We are pretty screwed when the poles move, igf the evidence is right. the field goes away and returns reversed. But while its gone its like living in a microwave oven.

475 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:16:37pm

re: #454 NJDhockeyfan

When you spend your time planning to get kicked off a website, it’s a sign you really have no life. Those who cheer that person on also have no lives. They all deserve each other.

It’s like the guys who spend 50 bucks on a new video game just so they can shoot their own teammates, get kicked out within 15 seconds, and wait 10 minutes for a spot to open up so they can go in and do it again. Do they really consider it fun? Are they really so bored that the best entertainment they can come up with is getting kicked out of a game or getting kicked off of LGF?

People like that need friends. Specifically, they need friends with the good sense to say “hey, man, your obsession with Charles Johnson is unhealthy” and refer them to a psychiatrist.

476 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:16:52pm

re: #470 Gus 802

Some stupid post by the white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain and that calendar video stupidity.

Those things and a flounce that they found much to their tastes. Seriously: Praising someone for a flounce is like praising them for a fart. Both stink, and do little other than stink.

477 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:16:59pm

re: #447 freetoken

As for your statement about the IPCC and sea levels, as you ought to be aware, in their fourth report they explicitly state that they ignored changes due to ice-cap melting because there was no consensus on the amount to expect during the targeted timeframe… not that it doesn’t exist, and not that we can’t expect melting from Greenland and WAIS.

Correct.

That there is concern about sea level rise because in the previous two interglacials sea levels were higher while also temperatures peaked at slightly higher temperatures than today, is not a complex hypothesis that is being proposed. It is a concern based upon observations. As you well know, if you follow any of the discussions about ice melt, there is lots of research on this topic currently. Last week I posted a link to the latest (and rather hefty) report from the British Antarctic Survey, which goes into detail about climate change in Antarctica. Thus it is both reasonable to be concerned about sea level rise from melting ice-caps (based on the paleoclimatology) and a matter of intense current research.

Also agree with you here. However, you have not substantiated your original point about a specific correlation between past sea levels and past temperatures (as it relates to the modern climate). As a courtesy, I just did a brief search to try and find what you were referring to and was unable to turn up anything.

As for the large coupled climate models used by the IPCC for projections… yes, a great diversity of models. What you didn’t mention though is that all of them agree with the general trend. Also, the nature of predicting a chaotic system that also has random input means that the approach taken to predictions is never the kind of certainty the layman requires of their daily mundane routines, such as turning on the faucet and expecting water to flow out of the tap. The IPCC and anyone else who is legitimate readily recognize the probabilistic nature of the prediction scheme. That is why error bars, or in the case of most graphs, shaded areas are included on either side of the mean output of the models, based on repeated runs of the models to allow for randomness and chaos.

You are exactly correct again here. What you failed to include is that we are, at present, outside of those error bars. Furthermore, the 30-year trend differs substantially from the model mean trend.

What you are demonstrating for us here on LGF is that you are well educated, but not being complete and open about the entire truth.

I am being completely open. If you’d like links to anything that I mention, I’ll find them for you. I asked for a link to a study to back up one of your points, and you have not provided it.

478 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:18:13pm

re: #472 Charles

This is more nonsense. Anyone who wants to find out the truth about current and projected sea level rises can start here:

[Link: www.google.com…]

You are suggesting people do Google searches instead of reading peer-reviewed literature from working scientists?

Are you joking around with me…?

479 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:18:23pm

re: #450 Racer X

Man, there is so much we don’t know.

Can you really blame me for this?

Youtube Video
480 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:18:23pm

The latest research on sea level rise: Sea Level Rise Quickening Along US Atlantic Coast.

An international team of environmental scientists says that sea-level rise along the Atlantic Coast of the United States in the 20th century was 2 millimeters faster than at any point in the last 4,000 years.

Sea-level rise prior to the 20th century is generally attributed to coastal subsidence. This occurs as land is lost to subsidence as the earth continues to rise in response to the removal of the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period.

Using sediment cores from the U.S. Atlantic coast, researchers found significant spatial variations in land movement, with the mid-Atlantic coastlines of New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland subsiding twice as much as areas to the north and south. Coastal subsidence enhances sea-level rise, which leads to shoreline erosion and loss of wetlands and threatens coastal populations.

The Researchers corrected relative sea-level data from tide gauges using the coastal-subsidence values. Results clearly show that the 20th-century rate of sea-level rise is 2 millimeters higher than the background rate of the past 4,000 years. Furthermore, the magnitude of the sea-level rise increases in a southerly direction from Maine to South Carolina. This is the first demonstrated evidence of this phenomenon from observational data alone. The team believes this may be related to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and ocean thermal expansion.

481 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:18:49pm

re: #476 Dark_Falcon

Those things and a flounce that they found much to their tastes. Seriously: Praising someone for a flounce is like praising them for a fart. Both stink, and do little other than stink.

It’s like boasting about a road rage incident in which you know you were either wrong or instigated the event. Like I said, it reminds me of the lower class neighborhoods. Kind of like the people on COPS. Same mentality.

482 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:20:15pm

re: #401 Charles

YUCK! Those folks need to get a life.

483 bosforus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:20:20pm

re: #465 Racer X
Wireless electricity via magnetism.
money.cnn.com

484 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:20:42pm

re: #478 kf

You are suggesting people do Google searches instead of reading peer-reviewed literature from working scientists?

It turns out you can use Google to find things written by working scientists in peer reviewed literature.

Shocking, I know…

485 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:21:42pm

re: #478 kf

You are suggesting people do Google searches instead of reading peer-reviewed literature from working scientists?

Are you joking around with me…?

On the other hand, you’re recommending that people get their science from creationists.

486 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:22:45pm

re: #483 bosforus

How is this different from Tesla? Not sure I want to sleep in an induction field. Talk about EM!

487 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:24:11pm

re: #474 Rightwingconspirator

I gamed this out with a writer friend. This would be a technology ceramic and plastic based, rather than metals. Otherwise induced current would fry the walls. Metals would be a safety hazard.

We are pretty screwed when the poles move, igf the evidence is right. the field goes away and returns reversed. But while its gone its like living in a microwave oven.

Exactly! Our magnetic field protects us from harmful radiation.

Never mind Global Warming:

At the present rate, Earth’s magnetic field could be gone within a few centuries

488 Stuart Leviton  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:24:28pm

I changed my mind. Ludwig, you’re right. Your argument is that if one can convince a rational person that there is even a remote possibility that GCC is true, then the risk analysis would (most likely) show that action row B is to be preferred.

489 bosforus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:25:19pm

re: #486 Rightwingconspirator

How is this different from Tesla? Not sure I want to sleep in an induction field. Talk about EM!

I don’t know enough about the physics behind Tesla’s work or the current work to answer that question. Sorry.

490 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:25:29pm

re: #456 kf

re: #411 lostlakehiker

Beyond just satellite measurements, we also have rough ground measurements of sea level changes going back decades. There has not been an acceleration. Further, the current changes in sea level are not out of the ordinary. In terms of natural changes, sea levels have increased dramatically since the last ice age and will continue to increase (slowly) until our next one.

As far as your second paragraph, a time frame is needed. I would suggest this study to you: [Link: www.colorado.edu…] which explains that incredibly high predictions for sea level changes are physically imposssibl.

Let’s see. The very article you link to says this:

Considering all major sources of sea level rise, including Greenland, Antarctica, smaller glaciers and ice caps and the thermal expansion of water, the team’s most likely estimate of roughly 3 to 6 feet by 2100 is still potentially devastating to huge areas of the world in low-lying coastal areas, said Pfeffer.

So to repeat:

[The] team’s most likely estimate of roughly 3 to 6 feet by 2100 is still potentially devastating to huge areas of the world.

491 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:25:47pm

re: #481 Gus 802

Do all flouncers act like they’re Martin fucking Luther posting ninety-five theses on the church wall?

492 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:25:54pm

re: #434 Dark_Falcon

you don’t want to know. The latest thread over at The Deuce is devoted to praising an obnoxious flounce from early this morning. Apparently, Blogmocracy = Has No Life.

They’re also upset that alcohol has been banned in Baghdad. Apparently our soldiers fought and died for the right to get tanked in the Middle East.

//Yes, I know where that trends. However, everyone knew that was where the trend was gonna go, before we went in. Sorry.

493 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:26:45pm

re: #491 JasonA

Do all flouncers act like they’re Martin fucking Luther posting ninety-five theses on the church wall?

They don’t have that kind of intellectual capacity.

More like Beavis and Butthead on a bad day.

494 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:27:22pm

re: #493 Gus 802

They don’t have that kind of intellectual capacity.

More like Beavis and Butthead on a bad day.

Heh. I did say “act like.”

495 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:28:02pm

re: #483 bosforus

Wireless electricity via magnetism.
[Link: money.cnn.com…]

Shades of Nicolas Tesla.

en.wikipedia.org

496 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:28:04pm

re: #491 JasonA

Do all flouncers act like they’re Martin fucking Luther posting ninety-five theses on the church wall?

Actually, most of the time they act like a bum taking a piss on the church steps.

497 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:29:38pm

re: #480 Charles

The latest research on sea level rise: Sea Level Rise Quickening Along US Atlantic Coast.

This doesn’t go against anything that I posted…

The link that I provided to you is for a University of Colorado project for sea level study. They use a satellite that was launched for one purpose only: to measure sea levels (topography of the ocean).

sealevel.colorado.edu

I realize it’s a short time span but again there is no acceleration. It is a roughly linear rise with slight deceleration.

Going back previous decades would use ground-based measurements, here is a link with the measurements in question in graph-form:

climateaudit.org

498 bosforus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:29:57pm

re: #486 Rightwingconspirator

How is this different from Tesla? Not sure I want to sleep in an induction field. Talk about EM!

But if it makes you feel any better it will be tested before it gets to you so it’s not likely you’ll get zapped. There are plenty of waves floating around your head right now as it is anyway. :)

499 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:31:10pm

re: #491 JasonA

Do all flouncers act like they’re Martin fucking Luther posting ninety-five theses on the church wall?

The idea behind a flounce is rather similar, except, of course, that Luther was an educated man with something to say. Also, in his case, the Church actually had a great deal of power, while the blogmocrats have pitted themselves against the might of a lone man with a blog.

500 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:31:22pm

re: #404 Rightwingconspirator

Okay that is about what I thought. As I understand they still take more power to start and run than they get out, falling short of break even. Maybe that can be described to me as a %?

Where I work we use a lot of hydrogen. Maybe 36 of the large size tanks from the supplier a week. I have done a ton of reading on hydrogen combustion etc. I know it takes more energy to split water than you get out when you reburn the gases. Short of break even, right?

My point is which “break even” is closer to practical, given the benefit of zero carbon heat.

Well if you had a fusion reactor or even fission reactors electrolyzing water to get hydrogen becomes much more reasonable.

IIRC fusion actually has reached break even back at Princeton in the early 90’s.

However, it is still a long way from primetime. IN principle though since the reaction os 2000 times more energetic than fission it would be the ultimate bonanza for world energy needs.

501 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:32:09pm

re: #487 Racer X

Do you small something burning?
*Sniff Sniff*

More seriously I see this progression. Wood. Metal. Steam. Oil/Gas. Better metals. Electricity. Better metals then atomic energy. Fusion. Next? Magnetic based who knows what. Far higher energies than Nuclear power as we see it now.

502 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:33:17pm

Looks like they’ve scheduled some comic relief at Copenhagen.

Ahmadinejad to get U.N. podium

COPENHAGEN –Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe plan to address negotiators at international climate talks in Copenhagen next week.

503 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:33:47pm

re: #497 kf

Uh huh. First creationist Roy Spencer, now quote miner Steve McIntyre. Pretty predictable.

504 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:34:25pm

re: #497 kf

The team’s most likely estimate of roughly 3 to 6 feet by 2100 is still potentially devastating to huge areas of the world.

505 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:34:33pm

re: #502 NJDhockeyfan

Looks like they’ve scheduled some comic relief at Copenhagen.

Ahmadinejad to get U.N. podium

As someone used to repeatedly post here, “We’re so fucked.”

506 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:34:58pm

re: #502 NJDhockeyfan

Looks like they’ve scheduled some comic relief at Copenhagen.

Ahmadinejad to get U.N. podium

Great.

Dopenhagen™

507 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:35:09pm

re: #502 NJDhockeyfan

Looks like they’ve scheduled some comic relief at Copenhagen.

Ahmadinejad to get U.N. podium

Ah, the illegitimate PM needs some attention.

508 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:35:35pm

re: #498 bosforus

Yeah like my wifi. Very true. At work we have an induction powered furnace. 25KW. Melts up to 100 toz of silver or 14kt in a few minutes. It alll happens inside this copper coil with water running through it. In the coil is the crucible. Scary powerful

509 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:35:47pm

Gallery of Auroras

510 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:35:59pm

Interestingly, the Blog That Shall Not Be Spoken Of seems to be souring on the Iraq war.

Also, all of them seem to be in touch with ‘sources’ or ‘contacts’ that know what is really going on in Iraq.

511 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:36:13pm

re: #329 KSK

He makes the assumption on the base that we don’t need to know whether it’s true. There’s the fallacy.

He puts the 4 different options at 25% probability each.
He also puts AGW or no AGW at 50% each.

And actually he omits two more possibilities:

5. GW is happening, but despite spending trillions the catastrophic event will happen anyway because it wasn’t man-made
6. In 20 years the Earth will start to cool (there may be events that we cannot foresee) and our actions will actually have contributed to that cooling

I would rather make a different case. At least some actions which are proposed to stop the presumed AGW are actually good for different reasons. Clean air, clean water, who’s against it? Clean water for everyone will actually be the major challenge in the next decades.

How if we spent our trillions to achieve tangible benefits for the 4 bn underprivileged people on Earth instead of wasting them on things that will make life for those 4 billions even harder?

He doesn’t assign probabilities. Rather, he argues that the bad payoff in the do-nothing column in the event of real AGW is so bad that even if the probability is low, a prudent bet is to cover act, just in case.

We can do this clean-water-for-all thing en passant. It’ll be like wiping out smallpox. An obvious good thing, accomplished, and cheaply. It’s not like we cannot address AGW and still chew gum.

Oh, and most of the world’s poor live in climates that are already too hot for comfort. Addressing AGW is relevant to their lives. Letting it run won’t hit us nearly as soon or as hard as it will hit them. But they cannot do anything to stop it, because they haven’t our mighty scientific establishment, and they hardly produce any greenhouse gases as it is.

The job falls to the U.S., China, Europe, Japan, and maybe India and Brazil.

512 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:36:20pm

re: #502 NJDhockeyfan

Looks like they’ve scheduled some comic relief at Copenhagen.

Ahmadinejad to get U.N. podium

Send in the murderous clowns. That’s a whole session wasted on “blame the West” conspiracy theories and threats.

513 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:36:25pm

Crescent Neptune and Triton

514 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:36:40pm

re: #506 Racer X

Great.

Dopenhagen™

I want to hear from the hookers and the Pope!

Gropenhagen!

Popenhagen!

515 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:37:23pm

re: #511 lostlakehiker

He doesn’t assign probabilities. Rather, he argues that the bad payoff in the do-nothing column in the event of real AGW is so bad that even if the probability is low, a prudent bet is to cover act, just in case.

We can do this clean-water-for-all thing en passant. It’ll be like wiping out smallpox. An obvious good thing, accomplished, and cheaply. It’s not like we cannot address AGW and still chew gum.

Oh, and most of the world’s poor live in climates that are already too hot for comfort. Addressing AGW is relevant to their lives. Letting it run won’t hit us nearly as soon or as hard as it will hit them. But they cannot do anything to stop it, because they haven’t our mighty scientific establishment, and they hardly produce any greenhouse gases as it is.

The job falls to the U.S., China, Europe, Japan, and maybe India and Brazil.

Don’t bother replying to that one. Charles booted his ass out.

516 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:38:44pm

re: #514 ryannon

I want to hear from the hookers and the Pope!

Gropenhagen!

Popenhagen!

And the potheads.

Stokenhagen!

517 laZardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:39:27pm

re: #505 ryannon

As someone used to repeatedly post here, “We’re so fucked.”

That was me, but I think I did that only once.

518 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:39:51pm

re: #510 SanFranciscoZionist

Interestingly, the Blog That Shall Not Be Spoken Of seems to be souring on the Iraq war.

Also, all of them seem to be in touch with ‘sources’ or ‘contacts’ that know what is really going on in Iraq.

Of course! A Democrat is in charge now, so they want the Democrat to fail.

519 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:41:16pm

re: #512 Dark_Falcon

Send in the murderous clowns. That’s a whole session wasted on “blame the West” conspiracy theories and threats.

Every UN conference has them. Sigh. I think we need some kind of environmental NATO.

520 laZardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:41:27pm

re: #511 lostlakehiker

Definitely Brazil. Rainforests and all that.

521 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:41:51pm

re: #516 NJDhockeyfan

And the potheads.

Stokenhagen!

And the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank!

Brokenhagen.

522 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:42:28pm

YES - Siberian Khatru, Live ‘78 (HQ Audio)

Youtube Video

I saw Yes in the round many years ago - Royce Hall I think. Awesome show!

523 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:42:31pm

re: #500 LudwigVanQuixote

Thanks. Some chemistry I am looking up online is seeing if it is easier to split the H from methane or oil than water and grab the carbon as a solid, as in a fuel cell. I really prefer hydrogen to the other fuel gases. Carbon embrittles platinum. Bad for jewelry. No acetylene at our shop at all.

As you know I’m a layman in these things. It always seemed odd to me that nuclear reactors are just used to make heat. Not electrons directly. I’m sure that’s laughable really, but that is one fancy machine to just boil water.

524 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:42:54pm

re: #521 ryannon

And the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank!

Brokenhagen.

And the pron stars.

Strokenhagen!

525 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:43:37pm

re: #524 NJDhockeyfan

And the pron stars.

Strokenhagen!

And James Inhofe!

Denialhagen™

526 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:44:02pm

re: #523 Rightwingconspirator

It always seemed odd to me that nuclear reactors are just used to make heat. Not electrons directly. I’m sure that’s laughable really, but that is one fancy machine to just boil water.

Heh - no shit. Like swatting flies with a cruise missile.

527 laZardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:44:07pm

re: #525 Gus 802

And James Inhofe!

Denialhagen™ Nopenhagen™

fix’d

528 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:44:36pm

re: #524 NJDhockeyfan

And the pron stars.

Strokenhagen!

And Lil Wayne:
Cokenhagen!

529 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:44:38pm

re: #522 Racer X

I missed my chance to see the Union tour. :( Of course, I was in jr. high at the time…)

530 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:44:45pm

re: #503 Charles

Uh huh. First creationist Roy Spencer, now quote miner Steve McIntyre. Pretty predictable.

He amended that post within 24 hours…additionally, he is right on point that the parties in question deleted the end part of the graph for inclusion in certain studies. They hid the late 20th century decline in the reconstruction.

531 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:44:56pm

re: #527 laZardo

fix’d

If Nick Griffin speaks…

Douchebaghagen™

532 Political Atheist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:45:54pm

re: #528 Dark_Falcon

And Lil Wayne:
Cokenhagen!

S tokenhagen

533 laZardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:46:26pm

re: #526 Racer X

Heh - no shit. Like swatting flies with a cruise missile.

Excessive, but really cool.

/love me some of that good ol’ ultraviolence

534 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:46:37pm

re: #527 laZardo

fix’d

And strange, apocalyptic female German chanteuses!

Nina Hagenhagen!

Youtube Video
535 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:46:45pm

Time for me to get to bed. I need to sleep more to get over this flu. Goodnight.

536 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:47:32pm

re: #533 laZardo

Excessive, but really cool.

/love me some of that good ol’ ultraviolence

Are you a droog by any chance?

/I’m out for real now.

537 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:47:37pm

OK, I gotta head for the shower.

Soapenhagen!

538 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:48:00pm

re: #522 Racer X

Yes rocks out on a Richie Havens song (Early Yes)

Youtube Video
539 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:48:22pm

re: #535 Dark_Falcon

Time for me to get to bed. I need to sleep more to get over this flu. Goodnight.

Time for Bedenhagen!

540 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:49:05pm

re: #530 kf

He amended that post within 24 hours…

Right. After he got caught red-handed.

…additionally, he is right on point that the parties in question deleted the end part of the graph for inclusion in certain studies. They hid the late 20th century decline in the reconstruction.

Right. Sure they did.

541 bratwurst  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:49:51pm

re: #514 ryannon

I want to hear from the hookers and the Pope!

Gropenhagen!

Popenhagen!

The son of the late great Dr. Bronner will speak:

Soapenhagen!

542 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:49:52pm

Their new slogan is “No more American blood for Muslim freedom”.

I suppose this means the neocon experiment is officially over.

543 bratwurst  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:50:12pm

re: #537 LotharBot

OK, I gotta head for the shower.

Soapenhagen!

D’oh! Beat me to it.

544 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:50:29pm

re: #542 SanFranciscoZionist

Who said that?

545 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:50:38pm

re: #538 Bloodnok

Wow, haven’t heard that it ages.

546 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:50:53pm

re: #543 bratwurst

D’oh! Beat me to it.

Too slowpenhagen.

Gonna gloatenhagen.

547 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:51:16pm

re: #542 SanFranciscoZionist

Their new slogan is “No more American blood for Muslim freedom”.

I suppose this means the neocon experiment is officially over.

I predicted unfulfilling results a long time ago.

548 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:51:27pm

re: #29 LudwigVanQuixote

Wow. I came into this thread late and was going to mention that it was a classic Pascal’s Wager scenario. It’s a good thing I decided to read a little before I posted that! BTW, I believe in Pascal’s Wager, so this is pretty convincing.

549 laZardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:52:16pm

re: #534 ryannon

And strange, apocalyptic female German chanteuses!

Nina Hagenhagen!


[Video]

International mobsters getting speakertime?

Tomhagen!

550 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:52:17pm

re: #544 Sharmuta

Who said that?

The Blogmocrats. I wouldn’t take it too seriously.

551 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:53:37pm

re: #550 SanFranciscoZionist

The Blogmocrats. I wouldn’t take it too seriously.

We must always show some empathy towards special needs bloggers.

//

552 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:53:56pm

re: #549 laZardo

International mobsters getting speakertime?

Tomhagen!

Followed by the Norwegian Lutefisk Producers Association!

Gagenhagen!

553 Jaerik  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:55:51pm

are: #500 LudwigVanQuixote

IIRC fusion actually has reached break even back at Princeton in the early 90’s.

Nah, as I referenced above, the Princeton reactor (the TFTR) never broke-even, although it did come closest for its time. Unfortunately it was shut down in 1997.

We’ve since come closer with the JET, and we expect to know for sure whether break-even is possible or not with the ITER.

Unfortunately, most fusion research in the US has been scuttled. It was not re-funded in the late 90’s and the Bush era officially killed it dead. Most of the research is now being done by Europe and Japan.

554 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:56:15pm

Nearly 1,000 held after Copenhagen climate rally

COPENHAGEN, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Police detained nearly 1,000 people in Copenhagen on Saturday during mass demonstrations to demand that negotiators at U.N. talks agree a strong treaty to fight global warming.

Tens of thousands of people marched through the city as part of a global “Day of Action” of climate rallies from Australia to the United States, but violence flared at one stage when demonstrators smashed windows and set fire to cars.

Riot police detained more than 900 people around the Danish capital after black-clad activists threw bottles and smashed windows. A police spokeswoman said the number had climbed to 968 shortly after 10 p.m. (2100 GMT).

Police said four cars were set on fire during the evening. One policeman was hurt by a stone and a Swedish man injured by a firework.

555 kf  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:56:32pm

re: #540 Charles

It’d be worth noting that the deepclimate post that you referred me to does not disagree with the point that I made, that Steve made, and that is pointedly obvious. The post-1960 portion of the graph, that was included in the peer-reviewed literature, was deleted for TAR. Why are you disagreeing with it?

Deepclimate points out that it doesn’t matter because the research has moved on (namely Briffa 2000). The divergence problem, in that instance, was solved because Briffa’s sample sizes were incredibly small in the modern era to the point of statistical unreliability. This was only recently discovered because the data was not available until just a few months ago. It’s the Yamal controversy. This should make for some nice late night reading: bishophill.squarespace.com

556 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:57:26pm

Anyone know the greenhouse gas comparison between a by-pass turbofan and a turboprop?

557 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:58:22pm

re: #554 NJDhockeyfan

Riot police detained more than 900 people around the Danish capital after black-clad activists threw bottles and smashed windows.

Sounds like the fucking anarchists.

558 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:58:31pm

Tossing a little Clutch into the mix.

Youtube Video
560 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:58:53pm

re: #556 Gus 802

Anyone know the greenhouse gas comparison between a by-pass turbofan and a turboprop?

African or European?

561 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:59:07pm

re: #554 NJDhockeyfan

Nearly 1,000 held after Copenhagen climate rally

I feel for the Copenhagen PD.

562 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 9:59:41pm

re: #560 Racer X

African or European?

European…

No…wait…

Woosh!

563 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:00:12pm

re: #559 NJDhockeyfan

U.S. says American citizen detained in Cuba

Send a truck over from Gitmo, and get him. This is no time for Cuba to be getting cute.

564 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:00:44pm

re: #558 JasonA

CLUUUTCH!!!

I saw Clutch on the Beale Street tour in Portland, good lord the crowd was like a pack of wild dogs.

(And yes, the band played Oregon)

565 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:02:18pm

re: #554 NJDhockeyfan

Nearly 1,000 held after Copenhagen climate rally

Car-b-ques and property destruction.

Just doing their part to protest global warming.

566 Racer X  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:02:48pm

Confusion
Will be my Epitaph

Youtube Video

Goodnite all.

/I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying…

567 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:03:26pm

re: #556 Gus 802

Anyone know the greenhouse gas comparison between a by-pass turbofan and a turboprop?

I’m pretty sure Turboprops are more efficient (in terms of thrust/fuel usage) than Turbofans at lowish speeds. That’s pretty much the only reason to use them. Turbofans become more efficient as you break about mach 0.75.

Planning to fly to turbopropenhagen?

568 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:03:46pm

re: #563 SanFranciscoZionist

Send a truck over from Gitmo, and get him. This is no time for Cuba to be getting cute.

Sorry, was that my I-secretly-think-I’m-the-President voice?

569 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:03:58pm

re: #564 WindUpBird

Here’s one for you then. (That’s not too far from the Yakima :)

Youtube Video
570 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:04:47pm

re: #569 JasonA

Niiice. Are you local to them?

571 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:05:01pm

re: #565 ryannon

Car-b-ques and property destruction.

Just doing their part to protest global warming.

Burning a car cannot be good for the environment.

572 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:05:28pm

re: #567 LotharBot

I’m pretty sure Turboprops are more efficient (in terms of thrust/fuel usage) than Turbofans at lowish speeds. That’s pretty much the only reason to use them. Turbofans become more efficient as you break about mach 0.75.

Planning to fly to turbopropenhagen?

Just pondering more efficient air travel. AOSIS nations rely on air travel for revenue and such.

573 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:06:19pm

re: #570 WindUpBird

Niiice. Are you local to them?

Nah. Saw them live once at the Hammerstein here in NY. Awesometacular.

574 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:07:44pm

re: #571 SanFranciscoZionist

Burning a car cannot be good for the environment.

No, but it makes them feel great.

575 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:09:32pm

For Terror Suspect, a Life of Contradictions

CHICAGO — Federal authorities allege David Headley is a terrorist. Joy Tomme knew him as a ladies’ man.

“Girls fell on their faces for him,” said Ms. Tomme, who worked the day shift in 1984 at one of two Philadelphia bars owned by Mr. Headley’s mother. Mr. Headley worked nights and still went by his given name, Daood Gilani.

Ms. Tomme, now a 78-year-old writer, said she was surprised during a visit to his apartment. “I thought it was going to be a love-nest,” she said. Instead, she saw posters of anti-capitalistic slogans and Islamic men bearing weapons.

Still tall and fit, the 49-year-old Mr. Headley is in custody, accused of helping coordinate the terrorist assault on Mumbai last year that killed more than 160 people. He is also accused of planning an attack on a Danish newspaper that had published unflattering cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.

576 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:09:52pm

re: #568 SanFranciscoZionist

Sorry, was that my I-secretly-think-I’m-the-President voice?

I found the near hawkishness almost fascinating yet the use of the word “cute” was a dead giveaway.

;)

577 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:10:37pm

re: #573 JasonA

Nah. Saw them live once at the Hammerstein here in NY. Awesometacular.

They really do put on a show! I found that youtube video of Neil on stage with Mastodon for Blood and Thunder. WHERE IS MY TIME MACHINE

578 laZardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:12:44pm

re: #575 NJDhockeyfan

# 1989: Daood is charged with heroin smuggling and is sentenced to four years in prison. He is released early, but violates parole and goes back to prison several times.
# 1997: He is charged with heroin smuggling again and gets 15 months in jail in return for extensive cooperation with the DEA.

Once a criminal…

579 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:14:29pm

SHARIA LAW SNEAKED INTO LABOUR BUDGET

THE Treasury plans to rewrite Britain’s tax rules to usher in a new wave of Sharia law for the country’s financial system.

The one-line revelation is buried in the 212-page pre-Budget report.

It is among a string of startling details which barely merit a mention in Alistair Darling’s controversial mini-Budget – prompting fresh accusations that Labour is “burying bad news”.

The Government wants to tap into the fast-growing Sharia finance market, set to top £205billion a year, and turn London into the “global gateway for Islamic finance”.

580 Four More Tears  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:14:46pm

re: #577 WindUpBird

They really do put on a show! I found that youtube video of Neil on stage with Mastodon for Blood and Thunder. WHERE IS MY TIME MACHINE

They get into it like no one’s business.

Youtube Video
581 ryannon  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:22:13pm

re: #579 NJDhockeyfan

SHARIA LAW SNEAKED INTO LABOUR BUDGET

It makes perfect financial sense, and the UK stands to make tons of money on it.

Smart move.

582 LotharBot  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:25:48pm

re: #572 Gus 802

Just pondering more efficient air travel. AOSIS nations rely on air travel for revenue and such.

Pretty much any modern jet (turboprop or turbofan) is more efficient than the older 727s and such that often fly to those nations. Something like a 787 or A380 has a better wing, generally better aerodynamics, better balance, and better engines. New turboprops are slower and more efficient than new turbofans. It’s more efficient still to fly a pure piston-powered aircraft, but not many people are willing to take twice as long to get there.

Keep in mind that fuel costs money, so efficiency is already at least partly factored in. But it does take a lot of fuel to make up for the extra hundred million it costs to buy a new aircraft, which is why you still see the older fuel-guzzlers out there. And passengers are willing to pay a little more to get there faster, which is why you see faster jets rather than turboprops or plain ol’ props.

As energy gets more expensive (whether due to GW laws like cap+trade or simply scarcity), the airlines — especially the little ones operating in tourist destinations — should adjust toward more fuel-efficient aircraft. I suspect that will be Turboprops with efficient wings, rather than piston-driven aircraft.

583 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:33:07pm

re: #579 NJDhockeyfan

SHARIA LAW SNEAKED INTO LABOUR BUDGET

This seems like common sense for a giant financial center, not sure what the big deal is.

584 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:33:19pm

re: #582 LotharBot

Pretty much any modern jet (turboprop or turbofan) is more efficient than the older 727s and such that often fly to those nations. Something like a 787 or A380 has a better wing, generally better aerodynamics, better balance, and better engines. New turboprops are slower and more efficient than new turbofans. It’s more efficient still to fly a pure piston-powered aircraft, but not many people are willing to take twice as long to get there.

Keep in mind that fuel costs money, so efficiency is already at least partly factored in. But it does take a lot of fuel to make up for the extra hundred million it costs to buy a new aircraft, which is why you still see the older fuel-guzzlers out there. And passengers are willing to pay a little more to get there faster, which is why you see faster jets rather than turboprops or plain ol’ props.

As energy gets more expensive (whether due to GW laws like cap+trade or simply scarcity), the airlines — especially the little ones operating in tourist destinations — should adjust toward more fuel-efficient aircraft. I suspect that will be Turboprops with efficient wings, rather than piston-driven aircraft.

True. Although in many respects efficiency of airspace can also make a big difference. With over two connecting flight non-connecting prop flight are sometimes faster then jet powered flights. Adjustments will have to be made in the long run.

There’s talk of zero emissions. I don’t see that happening especially if you consider the smelting of metals, steel production, etc. I’m digressing here but I think we would have to find a balance between the extremes. If we expect zero emissions then air travel will grind to a halt for the most part or at least to the speed of a solar powered glider.

585 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:35:45pm

Er, prop-glider that is. Solar powered. Flight leaves on Monday and arrives on Saturday. /

586 laZardo  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:36:27pm

re: #584 Gus 802

It won’t necessarily be zero emissions, but there will at least be fewer emissions considering we were dealing with the emissions from both making the plane and operating it.

587 darthstar  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:43:45pm

Hey everyone…just got back from a Chanukah party at a friend’s house. He accidentally spilled hot oil on himself an hour before the party started, so my wife and I went early and helped finish the prepping…I got to make the Latkes…didn’t do to bad, but then again, if you put an Irishman in front of ten pounds of potatoes, what can go wrong? Good times were had by all.

588 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:45:17pm

re: #586 laZardo

It won’t necessarily be zero emissions, but there will at least be fewer emissions considering we were dealing with the emissions from both making the plane and operating it.

I know. There’s talk of zero emissions. That’s impossible to attain. I think we need to stop setting target rates and focus more on wide spectrum modal changes. Right now it’s like the world is some kid smoking dope in his bedroom at his parents house dreaming that he’s going to be a PhD candidate ready to set of on a mission to Mars.

Small steps also applies for society and that includes global society. We have tankers burning bunker oil waiting for the fluctuation of oil prices to hit a high before loading. The world is almost 100% dependent on that. How do we get from there to any perceived goal is a bigger question.

589 Bagua  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:46:07pm

Terraplane Blues

MP3 Audio

-John Lee Hooker

590 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:56:34pm

Too much!

Youtube Video
591 stiruptheblog  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 10:59:37pm

Lets assume for a moment this box-style approach is a sound one. And lets follow the advice of the blue-shirted Craven to come up with tween scenarios. The ABSOLUTE WORST that could happen is this…

We choose to say YES and do something about Global Climate Change.
We DO what we THINK are appropriate actions to counteract GCC.
We enact policies, expand govt, suspend liberties, raise taxes, and spend money we dont have.
GCC turns out to be REAL and TRUE.
However, the actions WE took were the WRONG ones, or they were ineffective at best.
The resources we COULD HAVE saved (ie. squirrel and his nuts) to weather the changes are wasted, dooming us all. Perhaps a handful of us had the response CORRECT, but were ignored.

I’d say this is a far worse scenario than just NO and TRUE. Not only do we prepare poorly societally, we retard the individual’s ability to fortify as he/she sees fit. With what we already know about the gridlock in GOVT, how can any sane person expect effective and efficient action?

Is everyone dancing around, trying to AVOID climate change? Forget it. The climate will change regardless of what WE do. So, we change with it. We will weather every hardship. WALLE is part of our future now, lest face it! But seriously, I am not an extremist. I know we need to be prudent and even-handed when addressing what is to be done.

The LARGER issue is, how do we make small effective responses to the effects of an accelerating expanding world? And just like your “snowball”, how can we know the future consequences of our actions now, however well-meaning?

Just stirin’ it up.

592 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:00:02pm

Tumeni Notes - Steve Morse

Youtube Video
593 Bagua  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:00:55pm

Happy Hanukka!

Maoz Tsur

MP3 Audio
594 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:01:50pm

re: #591 stiruptheblog

Good lucking selling ‘asianwetbox.com’.

595 Bagua  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:03:57pm

Hanukka Dance - Woody Guthrie

MP3 Audio
596 darthstar  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:12:18pm

re: #583 WindUpBird

This seems like common sense for a giant financial center, not sure what the big deal is.

It’s got the word ‘sharia’ in it. That makes it evil.

/

597 Gus  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:15:38pm

re: #591 stiruptheblog

It’s too late bubba. The consensus is on climate change. You either adapt or move out of the way. The EPA was given the task of determining if greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act by the SCOTUS. The EPA determined it as such. If congress doesn’t pass a law based on that supreme court ruling then they’re violating a ruling from the high court. SCOTUS supersedes congressional action and inaction. The only alternative would be for congress to repeal the Clean Air Act and that’s not going to happen. Either way if they don’t act it’ll bounce back to SCOTUS and they’ll probably throw back a similar ruling if not one that is more strict.

598 mich-again  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:23:22pm

In general, I like the approach taken in that video for simplifying the question. Test the logic with extreme examples. But a couple thoughts..

First the global depression he sees in the upper left will cause much of the same doomsday scenario that he painted for the lower right quadrant. Second, there is no assurance that anything we do now can stave off the already looming environmental and economic disaster.

599 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:30:30pm

re: #553 Jaerik

a

Nah, as I referenced above, the Princeton reactor (the TFTR) never broke-even, although it did come closest for its time. Unfortunately it was shut down in 1997.

We’ve since come closer with the JET, and we expect to know for sure whether break-even is possible or not with the ITER.

Unfortunately, most fusion research in the US has been scuttled. It was not re-funded in the late 90’s and the Bush era officially killed it dead. Most of the research is now being done by Europe and Japan.

Cool! Thank you for the update. I was aware of the issues with the US almost pulling out of ITER. It’s been a while since I have looked into plasma physics though so I am a lot less current than I would like to be.

600 amrafel  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 11:35:29pm

Mr. Craven says about his argument:
“No one I’ve spoken to so far has been able to poke a hole in it.”
Red flag…
No one I’ve heard so far who has said concerning his argument: “No one I’ve spoken to so far has been able to poke a hole in it” has had his argument stand up to people poking holes in it.”

601 ryannon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 12:02:49am

re: #600 amrafel

Mr. Craven says about his argument:
“No one I’ve spoken to so far has been able to poke a hole in it.”
Red flag…
No one I’ve heard so far who has said concerning his argument: “No one I’ve spoken to so far has been able to poke a hole in it” has had his argument stand up to people poking holes in it.”

Especially the ones from Louisiana

Youtube Video
602 daliarose  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:27:49am

Pascal’s wager. A smart video and very compelling. My only beef would be not with the argument, which is sound, but with a little piece of the conclusion. For certain, action must be taken. But we can still question which action should be taken. I did read a little about the Copenhagen treaties, and Monckton’s hysterical assertions aside, it does advocate massive transfers of wealth to poorer societies which have nothing to do with fixing the environmental problems. We should insist that those with the power to act should act, but act responsibly. That means implementing public policy to avert disaster, but not implementing irrelevant and unnecessary and damaging social change.

603 barflytom  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:47:29am

re: #98 EE

I agree. I saw a similar video a while ago with some British guy making exactly the same argument with the same 4 boxes. Bollocks is the word that comes to mind. The likely worst case is nothing like what he suggests (Where does he get the idea about more and worse hurricanes, for just one example?). There is a far greater range of possibilities, and the consequences he describes simply don’t make sense. What if massively expensive “action” on CO2 causes an economic collapse, and means that the world lacks the resources to adapt to changes which might happen anyway ? What if we’re heading for another little ice age due to solar effects ? etc etc etc Have to do better than that mate.

604 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 5:57:51am

He addressed lots of the criticisms that are in this thread in his later videos.


youtube.com

605 abolitionist  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:09:11am

I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to have a look at a set of lectures by Dr Albert A Bartlett - a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ of Colorado-Boulder.
The Most IMPORTANT Video You’ll Ever See (part 1 of 8)

The title within the video itself is Arithmetic, Population and Energy. (Copyright 2002)

Many moons ago, I linked to these lectures, but some parts were not available then. Videos #5 and #6 deal in some detail with the subject of “peak oil” —first outlined by M. King Hubbert in 1956.

Global Warming is mentioned (briefly) at the end of #7 and start of #8.

The subject matter is waaay simpler and easier to grasp than AGW, perhaps by a couple orders of magnitude. Only high school level math is required; more advanced math knowledge is optional, but surely helpful. (Sometimes I think the AWG meme has been embraced and so heavily promoted because of its complexities, uncertainties and unknowables.)

BTW, this set of 8 videos by Dr Bartlett (about 70min total) is hosted on Greg Craven’s Youtube channel, wonderingmind42, along with the video Charles posted at the top of this thread.

606 pyrodoctor  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:33:45am

It’s a good argument but it completely misses the point of many people’s objections.

The actions we take should be appropriate for the confidence in the likelihood of the worst case scenario to happen. Using that guy’s logic we should immediately build spaceships and colonize mars because there is a risk of a large asteroid hitting the earth and killing us all. That’s ridiculous of course. But the risk of a large asteroid hitting the earth IS high enough that we should devote some resources to tracking the ones out there. Likewise in global warming, the risk is high enough to do things like a) promote conservation; b) promote alternate energy sources. But is the risk high enough to a) eliminate the use of coal? b) raise people’s electric bills a couple hundred dollars a month? I don’t think so but some people do.

The other thing that no one really argues about is that the whole cap and trade thing is a big Ponzi scheme to fatten the wallets of the investment bankers and few elites. If they really want to tax CO2 they should just tax it so we can easily see what the impact in our lives is.

607 exelwood  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:07:54am

Here’s some denier analysis of the Darwin data, has this been debunked yet?

wattsupwiththat.com

608 Feline Fearless Leader  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:23:34am

re: #96 windsagio

However, delivery might be a problem…

That one is easy. Build set of big-ass armored all-terrain vehicles and get some clones of Jan Michael Vincent!

/

609 Mich-again  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:34:35am

re: #602 daliarose

I agree and I scoff at the condescending attitude I see occasionally here and elsewhere that anyone who dares to question the effectiveness of proposals to combat climate change is a “denier” of some sort. Its turning out to be a “sport” where you have to pick one side or another and root for your team and boo the other team. I’d be OK with that if I was “rooting” for scientists over anti-science dolts, but when it comes to politicians, none of them get my unconditional loyalty to every proposal they dream up

I agree with the scientists about where were are and what needs to be done, but I think the political solutions offered up so far will do nothing or could even make matters worse by killing off the economic activity we need to provide the cash flow for all the new investment needed in a new energy infrastructure.

610 [deleted]  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:04:29am
611 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:07:53am

re: #610 der_ich

You are, apparently, confused like many others in thinking science and faith are the same thing? Climate Change isn’t faith based- you can look at evidence and data to see it’s true. Your attempt to use the scientist’s logic to argue faith fails because it’s faith, not science.

612 [deleted]  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:09:25am
613 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:11:15am

re: #610 der_ich

…Um… no. I think I’ll stay an atheist, thankyouverymuch. Now, just what the hell is your point? That science = faith? If so, facepalm.
/sigh, please post more coherently next time. ;/

614 jordash1212  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:11:19am

One thing I notice here is that he seems to playing into the emotion that if we don’t act, our world will cease to exist as we know it. That might be true. I don’t find myself denying that global climate change is happening, but what humans can do. I like Craven’s idea to error on the side of safety, and that might be ultimately what counts when developing policies. There is certain information that will never be agreed on by scientists, and there’s just too little data to make definite conclusions on. Something Craven doesn’t mention in the video (although he might make it in his book) is that by reconstructing our country to help combat climate change by creating new, more efficient, more powerful technologies, we do ourselves a favor in the long run. What Craven suggests has much to do with geopolitics and not just climate politics. We can’t live on fossil fuels forever.

615 [deleted]  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:12:49am
616 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:17:25am

re: #523 Rightwingconspirator

Thanks. Some chemistry I am looking up online is seeing if it is easier to split the H from methane or oil than water and grab the carbon as a solid, as in a fuel cell. I really prefer hydrogen to the other fuel gases. Carbon embrittles platinum. Bad for jewelry. No acetylene at our shop at all.

As you know I’m a layman in these things. It always seemed odd to me that nuclear reactors are just used to make heat. Not electrons directly. I’m sure that’s laughable really, but that is one fancy machine to just boil water.

OT.

Am I to understand you make jewelry? Cool. My wife has been making bead jewelry for years and just recently I’ve kind of joined in with a lathe and soon to be CNC mill. Love your photos btw.

617 Decatur Deb  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:17:59am

re: #613 Varek Raith

…Um… no. I think I’ll stay an atheist, thankyouverymuch. Now, just what the hell is your point? That science = faith? If so, facepalm.
/sigh, please post more coherently next time. ;/

Science is not faith. However, a faith-like process is involved when 80 million voters are expected to translate science into risk-heavy political action. I take my doctor, my mechanic, and my climate scientist largely on something like “faith” because no none has the time and education to learn all the critical decision requirements.

618 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:18:56am

der-ich go bye-bye.

619 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:19:40am

re: #610 der_ich

Bye now! Have fun contributing your brilliant insights to some other blog.

620 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:21:23am

As usual, deniers swarm the thread after it moves down the page. It’s becoming as predictable as clockwork.

621 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:24:30am

re: #571 SanFranciscoZionist

Burning a car cannot be good for the environment.

Good for local car sales and repair shops though.

622 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:25:40am

re: #620 Charles

As usual, deniers swarm the thread after it moves down the page. It’s becoming as predictable as clockwork.

They seem to believe that last word on a blog = magical, reality-altering event.

623 el gringo  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:52:30am

A dry-erase board? That’s almost as compellling as a powerpoint with animated wavy arrows. Almost.

The “faith” part in this is believing that the drastic solutions prescribed by the AGW advocates to reduce carbon emissions (a) can effectively be implemented, planet-wide, or (b) can actually have any effect on the climate. There’s no “science” in that, it’s just hope.

624 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:56:52am

Case in point.

625 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:02:29am

re: #623 el gringo

So, the medium in which the data is presented determines its truthiness?
/ridiculous.

626 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:56:05am

I have seen this video before, but I find the logic very flawed. Indeed, the logic seems to be the same logic presented when one receives a chain letter. “if you don’t send this letter to 100 of your friends, you can grow a horn and get a hang nail”. No, the science may be accurate but the logic presented here is flawed.

627 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:01:15am

re: #626 jayzee

I have seen this video before, but I find the logic very flawed. Indeed, the logic seems to be the same logic presented when one receives a chain letter. “if you don’t send this letter to 100 of your friends, you can grow a horn and get a hang nail”. No, the science may be accurate but the logic presented here is flawed.

And that flaw is?

Really, what is the flaw?

628 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:23:57am

re: #627 ludwigvanquixote

And that flaw is?

Really, what is the flaw?

Probably not a good idea to hold your breath while waiting to find out.

629 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:28:29am

First off, he states that his argument will prove what we need to do, without KNOWING whether climate change is real. Therefore, his arguments need to follow logical form to prove what action is correct. They don’t. Here are a few examples.

“Worst Case Scenarios” The pro AGW scenario presented, makes “Al Gore looks like a sissy Pollyanna”, while the worst case if there is no AGW is relatively mild. You cannot randomly assign these realities in a logical argument. There is no room for arbitrary assignments such as that in a logical argument.

“The risk of not acting outweighs the risk of acting.” Again, this depends on the what the actual risks are. These cannot be randomly assigned.

What he presents is chain letter logic. Better yet, why don’t you tell me how the logic presented by this guy is any different than those contained within a chain letter. I bet you cannot.

630 eastsider  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:31:29am

Its similar to Dick Cheney when he laid out his “1% doctrine.” That is if there is a 1% chance that a nation is harboring dangerous weapons that could harm America, our response should be as if the threat is a certainty.

Although in this case, I’d say the chances of AGW being true are wa-a-a-a-a-ay more than 1%.

631 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:33:09am

re: #628 Charles

Probably not a good idea to hold your breath while waiting to find out.

Charles, that wasn’t nice. I’ve been a very decent member here for a while. I am no troll and am not afraid, nor do I think I should be, to say what I think here. I have stated, honestly, that while I am not 100% sure about AGW, I think the science may support it, however, I am concerned about political solutions to scientific problems and hyperbole on both sides.

My problem with this youtube clip is really just a logical one. It doesn’t make sense and I don’t like things unscientific being portrayed scientifically (if that makes sense). Regardless of who is doing that portrayal.

632 gareth  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 12:12:03pm

I have a different perspective to the gentleman in the video;

False/Yes: Our standard of living falls because things get more expensive and Government takes more money off us.
False/No: Nothing.
True/Yes: Our standard of living falls because things get more expensive and Government takes more money off us.
True/No: Our standard of living falls because things get more expensive.

What is the cost of doing the wrong thing?

If redistributing wealth is the solution (as those in Copenhagen are keen to do) are our Governments the best people to redistribute it? When it comes to aid money for poor countries money tends to flow to vested interests or passes through many hands diminishing with every step. Countering climate change will be no different.

I favour free trade. Unhindered by North American, European and Asian trading blocks. It puts our money in the hands of producers in poorer countries by choice. Our cost of living reduces and their standard of living is increased by their own productivity. Then those affected by climate change can afford to adapt to it themselves rather than having to rely on handouts. Developed nations would afford it because the cost of living dropped and developing nations would afford it with their rising incomes.

Globalisation will seek to use resources as efficiently as possible. The interference of Governments currently prevents this through subsidies and trade tariffs. The only action Governments should take is to stockpile certain resources such as grain and oil when it is cheap and sell it when prices rise to reduce the usual spikes in prices due to shortages caused by things like weather and warfare.

Everything I see about the politics of climate change leads me to think it is as much about maintaining the status quo of nations as it is about being more economical and sensible with natural resources. I’m none to comfortable with the corporations that have jumped on the bandwagon now there is a means to make money trading carbon credits and pliant Governments handing them out like sweets. There is also a strong sense of artificial charity about our world leaders, ready, willing and able to throw large amounts of taxpayer money at basket case countries that would sort themselves out if their people were able to trade with us.(Their Governments would not be getting a slice of aid money so would have to tax their own people and the people would expect competent Government in return.) It would also reduce the world population given time - richer populations tend to have fewer children.

Sadly this would require world leaders and Governments to step back from the great power they have obtained and rely on rational people making rational choices the world over. We would do if we were left alone.

633 gregb  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 12:17:30pm

I can see the equivalent to Pascal’s wager, but with two differences. In Pascal’s wager, the lose-lose quadrant involves an infinite loss, aka an eternity in hell.

I agree with mikhailtheplumber, this actually closer to a prisoner’s dilemma, it’s actually a repeated prisoner’s dilemma, aka an “infinite” game. In the case of global warming, the loss penalty right now is not infinite, though with each passing period, the penalty increases exponentially. Waiting longer increases the penalty for not cooperating.

In a single or fixed round of prisoner’s dilemma, the equilibrium, aka the solution, is always the same between rounds. Even worse, each successive round reinforces the outcome of the previous round.

In an interative prisoner’s dilemma, there is some point in the game where the behavior of the participants changes the equilibrium from non-cooperation to cooperation.

Is GW a zero-sum game? It’s more like a multi-person dilemma.

Either way, the whole field of Decision Theory was founded on Pascal’s theories of expected results and popularized in the 50’s by the RAND corporation. Half the theoretical mathematicians that came out of there ended up at UC Irvine’s Mathematical Behavioral Sciences institute.

imbs.uci.edu

634 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 12:52:12pm
“nobody I’ve shown it to so far, has been able to poke a hole in it.”

Down ding away, but this is not a logical argument. He may be right, but logical? Not really. Please see this link for more info on fallacies. The two that stand out are burden of proof and appeal to fear.

635 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 1:08:53pm

re: #634 jayzee

Down ding away, but this is not a logical argument. He may be right, but logical? Not really. Please see this link for more info on fallacies. The two that stand out are burden of proof and appeal to fear.

Anyone who would compare this presentation to a “chain letter” has pretty much removed himself from consideration as an honest critic.

636 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 1:21:49pm

re: #634 jayzee

Actually it is a very logical argument.

The logic is case a is less bad than case b.

Very simple really.

Now you make some comments about ascribing adjectives to the worst case scenarios.

OK, so look at the actual science. You will find, that the worst case scenarios, as predicted by actual scientists involve things like greater than 2 meter raises in sea levl by the end of the century coupled with drastically reduced agriculture and loss of fresh water to vast regions of the planet.

Such a thing really will cause the collapse of civilization as we know it.

And the market would collapse too.

The mid range predictions only call for a one meter rise by the end of the century - coupled with drastic loss of agriculture and fresh wwater resources.

That too will cause a collapse of the economy as we know it.

Now you can call that alarmist all you want and plug your ears and call it other names too. OR you could fact check me and honestly look at the legitimate science.

637 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 1:23:07pm

re: #635 Charles

Sorry you feel that way. I was trying to point out the logical flaws is all. I am not minimizing the message, just the delivery. For the record I am honest. I had a feeling that my intent would be misconstrued when I wrote the initial post and I can see, especially in light of a lot of the attacks presented here against AGW, how it would be. You should know that your information on AGW has turned me from someone who was skeptical into someone that is beginning to accept AGW. This video, did nothing for me however, for the reasons I’ve stated.

638 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 1:28:47pm

re: #636 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually it is a very logical argument.

The logic is case a is less bad than case b.

Very simple really.

Now you make some comments about ascribing adjectives to the worst case scenarios.

OK, so look at the actual science. You will find, that the worst case scenarios, as predicted by actual scientists involve things like greater than 2 meter raises in sea levl by the end of the century coupled with drastically reduced agriculture and loss of fresh water to vast regions of the planet.

Such a thing really will cause the collapse of civilization as we know it.

And the market would collapse too.

The mid range predictions only call for a one meter rise by the end of the century - coupled with drastic loss of agriculture and fresh wwater resources.

That too will cause a collapse of the economy as we know it.

Now you can call that alarmist all you want and plug your ears and call it other names too. OR you could fact check me and honestly look at the legitimate science.

Look, I really think you have me wrong. I am not arguing science. I am arguing the logic here. You asked why and I explained. There’s gotta be a professor out there who can speak to this and maybe even tell me where, logically I am wrong. It is purely an argument on logic, not AGW. You are arguing that the science proves AGW therefore we must do X. I understand that, BUT this argument says we don’t need to prove AGW to prove what we should do.

639 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 1:40:20pm

re: #638 jayzee

Look, I really think you have me wrong. I am not arguing science. I am arguing the logic here. You asked why and I explained. There’s gotta be a professor out there who can speak to this and maybe even tell me where, logically I am wrong. It is purely an argument on logic, not AGW. You are arguing that the science proves AGW therefore we must do X. I understand that, BUT this argument says we don’t need to prove AGW to prove what we should do.

Actually no.

The logic is simple.

Look at it as a risk analysis. The science will tell you that the “row thinking” favors catastrophic collapse from AGW by much much more than 50%.

I even wrote a bunch on this very thread for why, of course, it is much much greater in favor of AGW being real than 50%

But let’s for the sake of argument say it is 50, 50

If AGW is wrong, and you do something to stop it, you have a 50% where the worst thing that happens is a period of recession - which is debatable, because there would be a huge growth of domestic energy production. It is unclear that society as we know it will collapse or that hundreds of millions will die as a result.

If AGW is right though, and you do nothing, the we have hundreds of millions of deaths, war, famine, plague and the collapse of civilization as we know it.

So suppose I offered you a choice, go through door A and you have a 50% chance of getting punched in the belly. Go though door b and you have a 50% chance of getting shot after you are gang raped by a troop of angry gorillas.

Which is the logical door to choose?

Now what if I told though that the best that science and data can tell you is that actually going through door be, in reality has a greater than 90% of getting shot after a primate love fest?

What is the logical choice?

640 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 1:42:29pm

PIMF

Actually no.

The logic is simple.

Look at it as a risk analysis. The science will tell you that the “row thinking” favors catastrophic collapse from AGW by much much more than 50%.

I even wrote a bunch on this very thread for why, of course, it is much much greater in favor of AGW being real than 50%

But let’s for the sake of argument say it is 50, 50

If AGW is wrong, and you do something to stop it, you have a 50% where the worst thing that happens is a period of recession - which is debatable, because there would be a huge growth of domestic energy production. It is unclear that society as we know it will collapse or that hundreds of millions will die as a result.

If AGW is right though, and you do nothing, the we have hundreds of millions of deaths, war, famine, plague and the collapse of civilization as we know it.

So suppose I offered you a choice, go through door A, and you have a 50% chance of getting punched in the belly. Go though door B, and you have a 50% chance of getting shot after you are gang raped by a troop of angry gorillas.

Which is the logical door to choose?

Now what if I told though that the best that science and data can tell you is that actually going through door B, in reality has a much greater than 90% of getting shot after a primate love fest?

What is the logical choice?

641 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:09:37pm

re: #640 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

Actually no.

The logic is simple.

Look at it as a risk analysis. The science will tell you that the “row thinking” favors catastrophic collapse from AGW by much much more than 50%.

I even wrote a bunch on this very thread for why, of course, it is much much greater in favor of AGW being real than 50%

But let’s for the sake of argument say it is 50, 50

If AGW is wrong, and you do something to stop it, you have a 50% where the worst thing that happens is a period of recession - which is debatable, because there would be a huge growth of domestic energy production. It is unclear that society as we know it will collapse or that hundreds of millions will die as a result.

If AGW is right though, and you do nothing, the we have hundreds of millions of deaths, war, famine, plague and the collapse of civilization as we know it.

So suppose I offered you a choice, go through door A, and you have a 50% chance of getting punched in the belly. Go though door B, and you have a 50% chance of getting shot after you are gang raped by a troop of angry gorillas.

Which is the logical door to choose?

Now what if I told though that the best that science and data can tell you is that actually going through door B, in reality has a much greater than 90% of getting shot after a primate love fest?

What is the logical choice?

The logical choice is not the question. A flawed argument does not mean the answer provided is wrong, just that the argument was flawed. As for what needs to be done-I am trying to review the options and come to a conclusion. I aint as smart as you.

642 Cugel  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:15:22pm

Considering both sides of the “What causes global warming” debate are able to provide scientific positions to support their own views, this whole issue strikes me as being a secular version of Pascal’s wager.

643 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:27:37pm

re: #642 Cugel

Considering both sides of the “What causes global warming” debate are able to provide scientific positions to support their own views, this whole issue strikes me as being a secular version of Pascal’s wager.

There are no two sides in the scientific community anymore.

A more accurate description would be. Because the political and corporate funded propaganda machine of the deniers can continue to come up with nonsense, it some people mistake them for scientists and their nonsense for science.

644 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:29:44pm

re: #641 jayzee

The logical choice is not the question. A flawed argument does not mean the answer provided is wrong, just that the argument was flawed. As for what needs to be done-I am trying to review the options and come to a conclusion. I aint as smart as you.

But the argument is not flawed. It is exactly analogous to the coice of through door A there is a 50% chance of punched in the belly, vs, through door B there is a 98% chance of getting killed in an ugly way.

Clearly door A is the logical choice.

Even more so, because the odds in door B are much worse than 50%

645 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:45:59pm

re: #644 LudwigVanQuixote

But the argument is not flawed. It is exactly analogous to the coice of through door A there is a 50% chance of punched in the belly, vs, through door B there is a 98% chance of getting killed in an ugly way.

Clearly door A is the logical choice.

Even more so, because the odds in door B are much worse than 50%

Which is a much better logical argument than the one presented.

646 jayzee  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 2:48:45pm

re: #642 Cugel

Considering both sides of the “What causes global warming” debate are able to provide scientific positions to support their own views, this whole issue strikes me as being a secular version of Pascal’s wager.

I think that’s what he was going for, basically starting out by saying that it doesn’t matter what the science shows (like Pascal saying we are unsure about everything). Thing is, Pascal’s Wager was criticized by many for a lot of reasons including, but not limited to, some logical fallacies (if I recall correctly).

647 dridel  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 3:00:47pm

flawed logic u could use to scare anyone into anything. same argument could be used to convince people to give 10% of their income to their church to avoid going to hell. whats the worst that could happen? nonsense… come on people. pls. im not saying climate change or hell are false, its just that this kind of argument is not the way to convince others.

also, heres my perspective on man made global warming: if it’s real, humanity will never stop it, less alone reverse it. why not? i come from a third world country, and im certain people will not stop feeding their families because they think their trucks polute too much. third world countries, including china and india, will become the greater polluters of the 21st century, and nothing we do in the industrialized world is going to change that.

648 charles_martel  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 3:54:08pm

This guy presents such an oversimplified set of choices that it makes it a completely useless argument. He assumes that global warming is caused by mankind. He further assumes that efforts we make now can stop the warming. What if the climate change is 80% from natural causes? Or 65%? A third choice we might need to make would be to adapt to an unstoppable natural change. That presents two mutually exclusive Action choices: to control greenhouse gases or to plan for adaptation/evacuation/etc. When you try too much to oversimplify, you render the argument useless.

Good science demands that we keep studying the problem, and not reject arguments because they diverge from the orthodoxy.

649 Cugel  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 5:32:26pm

re: #643 LudwigVanQuixote

There are no two sides in the scientific community anymore.

A more accurate description would be. Because the political and corporate funded propaganda machine of the deniers can continue to come up with nonsense, it some people mistake them for scientists and their nonsense for science.

I prefer to take a more rational stance. Despite your clear emotional conviction and negative characterisation of anyone who disagrees with you, there exists science that supports man-made climate change AND science that challenges the AGW view.

Personally, I’d like a little more calm debate and a little less breathless assertion.

650 Cugel  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 5:35:18pm

re: #646 jayzee

Thing is, Pascal’s Wager was criticized by many for a lot of reasons including, but not limited to, some logical fallacies (if I recall correctly).

Yes, that was on my mind when I drew the parallel.

651 Larry A. Herzberg  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:19:57pm

Here’s my take on the Pascal’s Wager analogy.

Early in Pascal’s argument, he attempts what’s known in decision theory as an argument from “superdomination”. It allows the arguer to avoid the messy business of assigning probabilities to the various outcomes (which fill up the boxes of the decision matrix). In decision theory, one option (let’s call it “A1” superdominates another (call it “A2”) when two conditions are met:

1) A1’s worst possible outcome is at least as good as A2’s best.
2) Choosing A1 is better than choosing A2 in at least one possible outcome.

Since the argument in the video does not involve assignments of probabilities to the various outcomes, it’s in effect an argument that A1 (taking action) superdominates A2 (not doing so). But it’s clear that this is false, since A1’s worst possible outcome has a high cost, while A2’s best possible outcome is a smiley face. That is, it fails the first condition for superdomination. So, as it stands, the argument fails.

Pascal also realized that his first run-through of his wager argument failed, and so turned to his more sophisticated argument, which involved assigning probabilities to the outcomes, as well as infinite negative utility to the worst case scenario. Then he could use the mathematics of expected utilities - where the expected utility of an outcome = its (positive or negative) value multiplied by its probability - for support. He was so sure of his argument’s soundness only because it didn’t matter what the probabilities were, as long as they were non-zero and the worst possible outcome of not believing when God exists had INFINITE negative utility, while that of believing had, at worst (when God doesn’t exist) finite negative utility. That’s where the parallel breaks down in the present case; since there are no infinite values to buttress the argument here, in this case both the values and the probabilities need to be discussed in detail, and this argument doesn’t begin to do that.

By the way, I support taking action, strongly. But the argument for doing so has to be better than this one.

652 amrafel  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 2:11:00am

How does one tell the difference between a denier and a skeptic? Beats me, but I bet George Carlin could come up with an answer. If he was wise enough to say, “anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”, then he’d surely have a good answer for this one, too.

653 daliarose  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:33:00am

I’m glad you put up the video of Barton. If anyone had doubts about the Craven video’s logic, just listening to that glib fool is enough to make one realize how foolish and dangerous some deniers can be.

654 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:07:58am

re: #649 Cugel

Uhhhuuuh,

No that is not true. IT is not about disagreeing with me. Actually it is about looking at the actual science itself, and can you believe it, thinking it through for yourself.

If you take the unheard of steps of looking at the actual facts and then thinking about them as they are, you will find that the scientists are telling you the truth and the deniers aren’t.

In thread after thread on this, however emotional you think I am - and I do get emotional becuase the facts are serious and lives truly are at stake - I posy the clear science too.

If you think that the argument is irrational, then as I have said at least three times the last few days, all you have to do is prove that somehow, gigatons of CO2 in teh atmosphere would not cause warming.

OK that is how the “denier side” would win. You can’t because CO2 really is a GHG. Once you accept that basic fact, then what does the fact that we have already increased the atmospheric concentration by almost 50% in just a century mean?

Look at the basics. Think it through. There is a correct answer. It is simple to see. And please don’t think it is my answer. I didn’t make the laws of physics.

655 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:12:34am

re: #652 amrafel

How does one tell the difference between a denier and a skeptic? Beats me, but I bet George Carlin could come up with an answer. If he was wise enough to say, “anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”, then he’d surely have a good answer for this one, too.

Actually that easy…

The skeptics in the science world, used to believe that the observed warming (no legitimate scientist doubts that data) might have been caused by something other than human emissions.

They are a dying breed, as the evidence has become overwhelming against that position.

The strongest that legitimate skeptics get these days is that we might have this or that other effect (which is secondary to Human caused effects) that needs to be accounted for differently in the models.

Deniers on the other hand just make up all sorts of stuff. If you look at their arguments, they are frequently very similar to ID troglodytes.

The deniers say the same damn talking point over and over, no matter how false or debunked it is. They get their basic science wrong all the time. They like to misquote thermodynamics and in general if you scratch them for a moment you will find that most can not do algebra.

The deniers also hyperventilate a lot about the economy and communists.

656 Synesius  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:01:38pm

Substitute “Alien Invasion” for “Catastrophic Climate Change” and see how much sense this argument makes.


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
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
3 weeks ago
Views: 773 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0