Why is climate science political?

[Saigon]

They did as good a job as I've seen of trying to make them look aesthetic, but they're still ugly buggers wherever they are. But the Copenhagen ones weren't as ugly as the Pickens group south of Lamar all the way down the road through Oklahoma's panhandle to Amarillo. Barf.

They aren't as ugly, nor as smelly and health hazardous as oil derricks, strip mines and smoke stacks, but we still seem to have them all around the nation.

Indeed they aren't.

I don't particularly like the look of wind mills, but if they are set alongside highways or out at sea, they don't bother me.

 

[Saigon]

The plant did fine with the earthquake and it would have weathered the tsunami as well if they had bothered to place the back up generators on the roofs of the containment buildings like they had been told to do. The tsunami wiped out the generators and that is what led to the meltdown.

Basically the Japanese got complacent because they think they know everything there is to know about earthquakes and tsunamis. Complacency kills.

Complacency with wind, solar or tidal is not dangerous to the wider community, and in a democracy, that matters too.

Nuclear accidents are not common, but when they do occur, they can threaten the entire country. That fact has to be part of the equation when choosing the best overall policy for energy as well as other factors.

 

[koshergrl]

They did as good a job as I've seen of trying to make them look aesthetic, but they're still ugly buggers wherever they are. But the Copenhagen ones weren't as ugly as the Pickens group south of Lamar all the way down the road through Oklahoma's panhandle to Amarillo. Barf.

They aren't as ugly, nor as smelly and health hazardous as oil derricks, strip mines and smoke stacks, but we still seem to have them all around the nation.

Indeed they aren't.

I don't particularly like the look of wind mills, but if they are set alongside highways or out at sea, they don't bother me.

Well..so long as you don't have to look at them, that's all that matters.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx9cueL7Sq0&feature=endscreen]bye bye 3 palas - bye bye WindMills - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

Well..so long as you don't have to look at them, that's all that matters.

Sorry, Kosher - I don't see your point.

Are you suggesting that how people feel about how wind mills looks is important, or not important?

 

[koshergrl]

It would be less important if they were effective.

They aren't effective, and they're a blight. Plus they're dangerous.

 

[Saigon]

It would be less important if they were effective.

They aren't effective, and they're a blight. Plus they're dangerous.

They are effective under certain conditions, and countries like Spain and Denmark produce significant amounts of electricity from wind at a competitive price per Mwh.

But obviously not all countries have such conditions enough of the time that wind becomes viable as a major source of energy.

I am not sure why you would consider them more dangerous than nuclear or coal, for instance.

 

[skookerasbil]

How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?

How much is western civilization worth to you?

How much lower will the temperature be in 2080 if we follow your advice?

Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences, but hopefully enough lower to avoid the irrecoverable consequences. Most of the next century is already in the pipeline, at least as far as the changes we are likely to see in the next 50 years, we can make things worse, but due to lags in system response and the momentum the system has already been given, there isn't much we can do that will make the next half century retreat from the course we are currently influencing.

s0n.......you might as well go outside and bay at the moon. Tens of trillions are not going to be spent due to a few hundred thousand nutters getting angst about what MIGHT happen 50 years from now. Write it down...........this is what is so ridiculous about this whole thread. People who hunt ghosts want money to eradicate the threat. Only a k00k would think its actually going to happen. Id love to go out today and buy a brand new 2013 Ford GT500 for $65K. Not happening...........its kinda a budget thing.

Best take up a new thing to get all OCD about. I tell this to all the bomb throwers on this forum. Dollar to 1,000 stale donuts they'll be saying the same stupid-ass things 10 years from now and green energy will still be well less than 10% of our energy.

Its like this.........I work in the field of autism for 26 years as an administrator. I see parents fighting all the time with the state goverment to get a larger slice of the pie for services. In recent years, budgets are being slashed. Why? Money is tight......and you just dont have a big enough voting block to change it. It is the exact same for this global warming shit.......its about numbers. Cant make the impact you desire.............never will either.........100% certainty. And tought shit on you too........imagine if the government bowed down to every fringe k00k outfit? There are lots of them including the bomb throwing environmental nutters........but if you look at the landscape, their impact is clearly on the wane ( see Cap and Trade)

The bomb throwers have to go to college and take a course in reading the tea leaves.


The science isnt mattering.

 

[code1211]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Just thought I'd go back to the source post and check the actual first statement which, it turns out, is based on statements with equivocal and uncertain words and is filled with hedging and non-specifics.

Seems almost reasonable except that when an AGW Proponent says that SOME PORTION of climate change MAY be the results of Man's activities, he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.

When the statement is that Warming and Climate Change ARE incontrovertibly the result of Man's Activities and that no other cause could even tangently be responsible for the effects cited, then we will have something to work with.

Until then, the argument's hot air is sourced to man, but that's it.

 

[Saigon]

he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.

To me, this is such a pointless line of reasoning; it just makes no sense whatsoever.

Firstly, the coal, oil and nulear industries have profited massively for years from government contracts, and I don't the most näive person in the world thinks a lot of that happened without corruption, graft and shortcuts.

Secondly, the great majority of scientific research and researchers will never benefit financially from any power project of any kind. Lecturers in physics do not, by and large, rely on handouts from solar power or coal companies to conduct research. They conduct research based on solid scientific principles and practices.

Lastly, if climate change science were based on corruption or politics, we would not see conservative parties around the world - including those who have previously invested in nuclear - line up on what might seem to be the left side of the fence.

As I have said here before - the fact that climate change is a left/right issue in the US doesn't mean it is in other countries. Look at their conservative parties, and see what they are saying.

As far as man's role goes; I think most people agree that human acitivity plays some role in climate change. But I defy anyone to say accurately to what extent. I think we are 10 years away from coming up with a single, concrete line of data on that. I'd rather work on tackling climate change while that research is being done that just ignore it.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have never seen windpower get a favorable review whenever it is honestly analyzed. Add to that the slaughter of wildlife and there is no reason why windpower should even be considered. Wind farms kills more birds than all the oil spills of the world combined ever, in a single year.

I think wind power has been over-hyped, but it is still useful in countries like Spain and Denmark that have excellent wind conditions.

The bird thing always struck me as a bit of a red herring:

According to the CSE, for every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings, typically glass windows.

The CSE recommends building wind mills out of known migratory routes. That doesn't seem too hard.

Wind myths: Turbines kill birds and bats | Environment | guardian.co.uk

I'll listen to these people a little more closely.....


The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

or.......



ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. — The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.

SeaWest Windpower wind turbine generators stand near Tracy, Calif.
By Ben Margot, AP

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.

The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds
USATODAY.com - Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

And that is for a single wind farm.

What the ecofascists do not want to admit is this:

ALL forms of power generation has a trade off.

Solar wastes land, is a major sight pollutant and is very light on energy density and runs only in certain areas for part of the day.

Wind causes seizures to those who are sensitive to flickering light, stress related illnesses caused by sound, is an eyesore, throws ice chunks, kills birds and runs only when the wind is at certain speeds.

Biomass affects how farmers grow causing food shortages for the crop is burned or replaced with fuel crops, and produces just as much of the same climatological threats they sought to ban. Not to mention it's a LOT more expensive and has no significant drop in environmental impact.

Tidal, depends on the slow generation periods created by the tides and is a shipping hazard. Oh, and it's localized to small areas which have big enough tides.

Wave energy is again is limited to the shore where wave action is large enough, you're consuming coastline and it is easily shut down by storm or lack of waves.

They all have their drawbacks... and none of the above are as reliable, inexpensive, energy dense and proven as Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Hydro.

But since they are such known quantities, it's hard to scam the public, and gain financial and political power with it.

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

I don't think I've ever heard any moderately intelligent person deny or even downplay any of the things you suggest.

I've seen a few ridicule the obvious red herrings like the bird strike one, but it's fairly obvious to most people that all forms of electricity production have some drawbacks.

You don't do yourself any favours by pretending that nuclear generation is somehow cheap, though.

It's a funny thing that here you are complaining that environmentalists aren't honest about the drawbacks to renewables, while at the same time you aren't honest about the drawbacks of coal and nuclear.

Why is that?

 

[Big Fitz]

he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.

To me, this is such a pointless line of reasoning; it just makes no sense whatsoever.

Firstly, the coal, oil and nulear industries have profited massively for years from government contracts, and I don't the most näive person in the world thinks a lot of that happened without corruption, graft and shortcuts.

Secondly, the great majority of scientific research and researchers will never benefit financially from any power project of any kind. Lecturers in physics do not, by and large, rely on handouts from solar power or coal companies to conduct research. They conduct research based on solid scientific principles and practices.

Lastly, if climate change science were based on corruption or politics, we would not see conservative parties around the world - including those who have previously invested in nuclear - line up on what might seem to be the left side of the fence.

As I have said here before - the fact that climate change is a left/right issue in the US doesn't mean it is in other countries. Look at their conservative parties, and see what they are saying.

As far as man's role goes; I think most people agree that human acitivity plays some role in climate change. But I defy anyone to say accurately to what extent. I think we are 10 years away from coming up with a single, concrete line of data on that. I'd rather work on tackling climate change while that research is being done that just ignore it.

Right. That line of reasoning is pointless... till it's your pocket being picked. The left never wants capitalism to work unless they can get something extra for nothing... but just them.

Firstly, the coal, oil and nulear industries have profited massively for years from government contracts, and I don't the most näive person in the world thinks a lot of that happened without corruption, graft and shortcuts.

And the green energy people are MORE honest? Utter and mighty bullshit. Solyndra is just ONE example at the scams going on. You don't like subsidies to coal and oil (if they really exist in the form you think) I'm more than happy to eliminate ALL government industry subsidies and let the market do what it will. Are YOU ready for such consequences to see popular companies fail because the product they make is not economically viable? I doubt it. You want to measure the game in something that doesn't matter or are happy with a 0-0 tie. Everybody loses.

Secondly, the great majority of scientific research and researchers will never benefit financially from any power project of any kind.

Bullshit again. Dr. Mann and Dr. Hansen are the posterchildren for such abuse. Experts on television are PAID for their time. They write books, they do the lecture circuit, the fan the flames of fear as consultants... all for personal profit.

You are a liar that this doesn't happen, or painfully ignorant on the academic corruption out there.

Lecturers in physics do not, by and large, rely on handouts from solar power or coal companies to conduct research.

They rely on handouts from politicans seeking data in which to gain political power. These scientists are willing dupes. That is all.

They conduct research based on solid scientific principles and practices.

That ended with climategate proving this is not fact. Where've YOU been since 2007 when the fatal bullet hit AGW?

stly, if climate change science were based on corruption or politics, we would not see conservative parties around the world - including those who have previously invested in nuclear - line up on what might seem to be the left side of the fence.

You fail to notice that political opportunists and power hungry bastards are in ALL political parties. The best parties do their best to purge themselves of those who value personal power and corruption for it out of their midst. At least the RNC in the US seeks to purge themselves of these people rather than embrace them like the DNC always seems to. Man, particularly ambitious politicans with no morals and little ethics will always find new and improved ways to try and make themselves nobility with power inperpetuity. This does not make them right, only evil.

As I have said here before - the fact that climate change is a left/right issue in the US doesn't mean it is in other countries. Look at their conservative parties, and see what they are saying.

Right, it's a smart versus sucker issue. Social engineering at the most devious level. Something government should be very very very very very very very restricted at doing save around crime.

As far as man's role goes; I think most people agree that human acitivity plays some role in climate change.

Appeal to consensus fail. Most people didn't believe in Plate Techtonics till the 60s. Most people did not beleive in Germ Theory till after Louis Pasteur. Most people believed in Spontaneous Generation of flies from rotting meat till the early 1800's. In the early 1900's Spiritualism was a huge fad till Harry Houdini, angered at the cheap charlatans masquerading as mediums created the American Skeptics Society to flush the chumps out preying on the hopes of the masses.

But I defy anyone to say accurately to what extent.

I defy such tawdry equivocation. The sun will probably rise tomorrow covers you from doomsday, doesn't it?

I think we are 10 years away from coming up with a single, concrete line of data on that.

We might be 10 days out... or 10 centuries. Come on. What kind of low grade P.T. Barnum 'science' is this? This does nothing to enhance your veracity.

I'd rather work on tackling climate change while that research is being done that just ignore it.

Fine. Do so with your own money and those willing to contribute. Create the science and data that is REPEATABLE and OBJECTIVE that all can test it and achieve the same results using their own methods to prove it. Do not expect to pass laws and force people into lifestyle changes until you have PROVEN your case and provided a cost benefit analysis of what will be gained by adopting your changes.

I'll lay dollars to donuts your suggestions will fail on 2-3 of those standards.


This episode of Fisking was brought to you by DOH

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

I don't think I've ever heard any moderately intelligent person deny or even downplay any of the things you suggest.

I've seen a few ridicule the obvious red herrings like the bird strike one, but it's fairly obvious to most people that all forms of electricity production have some drawbacks.

You don't do yourself any favours by pretending that nuclear generation is somehow cheap, though.

It's a funny thing that here you are complaining that environmentalists aren't honest about the drawbacks to renewables, while at the same time you aren't honest about the drawbacks of coal and nuclear.

Why is that?

I never stated the issues with coal and nuclear because I thought you ecofascisti had those tattooed on your arms for easy reference.

Plus I mentioned some of them in an earlier post.

As compared to the popular ecofascisti forms of energy, Coal, Nuclear, Hydro and (currently) Natural Gas are far and away the best forms of power generation with the positives FAR outweighing the bad.

So are you gonna pout all day?

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

Actually I'm pro-nuclear - I have no idea at all why you might think otherwise.

But in any conversation I think it is important to be honest, and if we're being honest about nuclear, it has several strongly negative elements - it's not popular, the safety risks are major, the waste is a problem with no solution, and it is not feasible in earthquake/tsunami zones.

I still think it is the best option available in some parts of the world, but certainly not a panacea.

I really struggle to believe that any honest person thinks coal is a good alternative....I'd be interested to see you present a case for it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, it's a good thing popularity does't affect the laws of physics. It's still true that Nuclear Power put to it's full potential could make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles. As for lighting, they're darn near right. It can only get better if we get the scaredy cats out of the way. If we get rid of subsidies and stick to only what the market says is most profitable, and make RATIONAL protections from poisons put in our environment from them (CO2 is not one of them), and not try to be hypochondriac clean this issue sorts itself out.

But the point remains this is not about doing what's bigger better faster cheaper. It's about power of men over other men and profiting at the expense of others. The very issue you've denied since post 1.

 

[Saigon]

Yeah, it's a good thing popularity does't affect the laws of physics. It's still true that Nuclear Power put to it's full potential could make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles. As for lighting, they're darn near right. It can only get better if we get the scaredy cats out of the way. If we get rid of subsidies and stick to only what the market says is most profitable, and make RATIONAL protections from poisons put in our environment from them (CO2 is not one of them), and not try to be hypochondriac clean this issue sorts itself out.

But the point remains this is not about doing what's bigger better faster cheaper. It's about power of men over other men and profiting at the expense of others. The very issue you've denied since post 1.

Right - because profit motive is never an issue in the coal, oil or nuclear industries. And neither have ever received ubsidies.

I have to say man - I just cringe when you post things like that. It's just so ridiculously one sided that it amazes me that you don't see it yourself.

Popularity is a valid point to make here, because we live in democracies. Governments should work to provide energy from sources people largely respect and prefer - providing to do so almost makes good use of tax payer dollars.

I do look forward to seeing your overview on coal.

btw - In the last 4 elections I voted for 4 different parties. I'm not left wing, so don't portray me as such.

 

[saveliberty]

Man seems to struggle with controlling the atom. The reasons, political, economic, forces bigger than man.

Now we have those motivated by greed and power to lead us down a path to solar and wind. Not really surprising.

 

[Saigon]

Now we have those motivated by greed and power to lead us down a path to solar and wind. Not really surprising.

It's a good thing there is no greed and power associated with the oil and coal industries.

 

[saveliberty]

Now we have those motivated by greed and power to lead us down a path to solar and wind. Not really surprising.

It's a good thing there is no greed and power associated with the oil and coal industries.

You just prefer a new evil.

 

[Saigon]

SaveLiberty -

I don't prefer energy sources on the basis of good or evil. I can imagine all industries within the sector are tainted by greed and corruption, but we need energy, so let's try and put the politics to one side and base or decision making on science.