Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by oo DAWG oo » Tue May 02, 2017 6:28 pm

pigseye2015 wrote:It's actually quite simple to scrub 99.9% of CO2 emissions from industrial sources, Siemens has had the technology for some time now but claim that a 90% scrub is the economic threshold.

So why hasn't this been done? We've had the solution to the problem since about 2009 when they started using it at coal plants in Germany.

The only answer, the entire green sector would just dry up....the real too big to fail story.


Add that to the
"we have the cure for cancer but....."
Or
"We have cars that run on water but...."
All-Star
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:44 am

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by Aerial » Tue May 02, 2017 7:04 pm

:thup:
Resilience is accepting your new reality, even if it's less good than the one you had before - Elizabeth Edwards
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by oo DAWG oo » Tue May 02, 2017 7:17 pm

Aerial wrote::thup:

Ahhh see you get it
All-Star
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:44 am

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by KevinRiley2 » Tue May 02, 2017 8:33 pm

oo DAWG oo wrote:
pigseye2015 wrote:It's actually quite simple to scrub 99.9% of CO2 emissions from industrial sources, Siemens has had the technology for some time now but claim that a 90% scrub is the economic threshold.

So why hasn't this been done? We've had the solution to the problem since about 2009 when they started using it at coal plants in Germany.

The only answer, the entire green sector would just dry up....the real too big to fail story.


Add that to the
"we have the cure for cancer but....."
Or
"We have cars that run on water but...."

The technology isn't there yet. It is either too bulky, too inefficient, or too expensive. But, because whomever finds the cure will be rich, rich, rich, we will get there.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8750
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 pm

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by ryan3434 » Thu May 04, 2017 1:47 pm

http://canadafreepress.com/article/deli ... -physicist

The evidence for man-made climate change is so flimsy that you might just as well believe in magic, says one of the world’s top physicists.
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachussetts Institute of Technology, has long expressed doubts about the “science” behind anthropogenic global warming theory. (h/t Paul Homewood)


Now, in probably his most comprehensive and devastating assault yet on the Climate Industrial Complex, Lindzen shreds every one of the fake-science arguments used by the environmentalists to justify their hugely expensive “global warming” scare story.

The 97% meme

This is a fabrication designed to make idiots feel like experts.

As Lindzen puts it:

The [’97 per cent of scientists believe in global warming’] claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people.

But, he explains, it’s just a trick created by pretending that all the scientists who agree that humans make a contribution to global warming (ie almost everyone) also agree with the alarmist theory that global warming is catastrophic, unprecedented and within man’s control. Which simply isn’t the case.

The ‘warmest years on record’ meme

Alarmists have been shrieking a lot recently that most of the hottest years on record – 14 out of 15, according to theUN – have happened since 2000.

This is silly for a number of reasons, Lindzen explains.

First, warmth is not necessarily bad or worrying thing:

It begins with the ridiculous presumption that any warming whatsoever (and, for that matter, any increase in CO2) is bad, and proof of worse to come. We know that neither of these presumptions is true. People retire to the Sun Belt rather than to the arctic. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

Second, it doesn’t – as some idiots believe – mean that global warming hasn’t paused for the last twenty years.

Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (ie, the increase of temperature) has ceased.

Third, the differences in temperature are so small as to be almost unmeasurable and are open to all manner of fraudulent adjustments by politically motivated climate gatekeepers.

The extreme weather meme

The idea that we are experiencing more “extreme weather” events because of “climate change” is plain dishonest.

Roger Pielke, Jr. actually wrote a book detailing the fact that there is no trend in virtually any extreme event (including tornados, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) with some actually decreasing. Even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that there is no basis for attributing such events to anthropogenic climate change.

In fact, its pure propaganda designed to scare the ignorant:

The claims of extreme weather transcend the usual use of misleading claims. They often amount to claims for the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. The object of the claims is simply to be as scary as possible, and if that requires claiming the opposite of the true situation, so be it.

Sea level rise

Not a problem:

Globally averaged sea level appears to have been rising at the rate of about 6 inches a century for thousands of years.

Arctic sea ice

After decreasing in the Arctic for a period and increasing in the Antarctic it now appears to be stabilizing. But so what?

All one can say, at this point, is that the behavior of arctic sea ice represents one of the numerous interesting phenomena that the earth presents us with, and for which neither the understanding nor the needed records exist. It probably pays to note that melting sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Moreover, man has long dreamt of the opening of this Northwest Passage. It is curious that it is now viewed with alarm.

Polar bear meme

I suspect that Al Gore undertook considerable focus-group research to determine the remarkable effectiveness of the notion that climate change would endanger polar bears. His use of an obviously photo shopped picture of a pathetic polar bear on an ice float suggests this.

Ocean acidification

This is again one of those obscure claims that sounds scary but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Ever since the acid rain scare, it has been realized that the public responds with alarm to anything with the word ‘acid’ in it. […]

[…] As usual, there is so much wrong with this claim that it takes a fairly long article to go over it all. I recommend the following source.

Death of coral reefs

Somewhat exaggerated…

The reasoned response to this [alarmist Nature] paper is provided here.

As Steele, the author of the above, points out, bleaching has common causes other than warming and is far from a death sentence for corals whose capacity to recover is substantial. This article is a bit polemical, but essentially correct.

Global warming as the cause of everything

Hardly anyone has the time and energy to deal with the huge number of claims. Fortunately, most are self-evidently absurd. Nation magazine recently came up with what is a bit of a champion is this regard. CO2, it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher). The Nation article is typical in that it makes many bizarre claims in a brief space. It argues that a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus led to temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Of course, no one can claim that the earth is subject to such a runaway, but even on Venus, the hot surface depends primarily on the closeness of Venus to the sun and the existence of a dense sulfuric acid cloud covering the planet. Relatedly, Mars, which also has much more CO2 than the earth, is much further from the sun and very cold. As we have seen many times already, such matters are mere details when one is in the business of scaring the public.

Lindzen’s article is well worth reading in full, not only for the usefulness of its scientific rebuttals but also simply to enjoy the loftiness of the author’s magisterial contempt for the entire field of climate “science.”

It is the exasperated sigh of a hugely intelligent and well informed scientist absolutely sick to the back teeth of trying to explain the truth about climate change to audiences which have been brainwashed into drooling idiocy.

For over 30 years, I have been giving talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a non-expert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, that warming has decreased profoundly for the past 18 years, etc., it is obvious that the audience’s eyes are glazing over. Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as is arctic ice, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, etc. I tended to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty, but it is, unfortunately, the case that this was not evident to many of my listeners.

Lindzen does not even pretend there’s a credible scientific case for the man-made global warming scare theory – because basically there just isn’t one. Believing in this theory, he concludes, is as stupid as believing in magic.

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure
I'd be unstoppable if not for law enforcement and physics!

Feminazis.. Not better women just crappy men.
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 10092
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:09 am

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by Aerial » Thu May 04, 2017 3:05 pm

Good read ryan. As expected our course Lindzen has detrators:

Climate Contrarian Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues in Open Letter to Trump
'This is not a view shared by us': After MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen writes letter urging Trump to withdraw from climate accord, faculty responds.
...

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0603 ... nald-trump
Resilience is accepting your new reality, even if it's less good than the one you had before - Elizabeth Edwards
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by beaglehound » Thu May 04, 2017 5:12 pm

Interesting diametrically opposing points of view. Thanks for posting them guys. :thup:
"Peace is not the absence of conflict in life but the ability to cope with it."
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:41 pm

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by ryan3434 » Tue May 09, 2017 4:08 pm

I'd be unstoppable if not for law enforcement and physics!

Feminazis.. Not better women just crappy men.
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 10092
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:09 am

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by ryan3434 » Tue May 09, 2017 4:10 pm

Apparently it takes 57 people in solar to do the same job as 1 person in coal.
I'd be unstoppable if not for law enforcement and physics!

Feminazis.. Not better women just crappy men.
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 10092
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:09 am

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by Aerial » Tue May 09, 2017 5:01 pm

Interesting ryan.

Today's most productive energy workers are in coal and gas, not solar

In an April 25 New York Times article ("Today's Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal") reporter Nadja Popovich wrote that "Last year, the solar industry employed many more Americans [373,807] than coal [160,119], while wind power topped 100,000 jobs." Those energy employment figures are based on a Department of Energy report ("U.S. Energy and Employment Report") released earlier this year that provides the most complete analysis available of employment in the energy economy.

But simply reporting rather enthusiastically (see the NYT headline again) that the solar industry employs lots of Americans, more than twice as many as the number of coal miners and utility workers at electric power plants using coal, is only telling a small part of the story. Here are some important energy facts that help provide a more complete picture about how much energy is being produced in different sectors, how many workers it takes to produce a given amount of electric power, and which sectors receive the most generous taxpayer handouts.

To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here). And that's a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.

In contrast, it took about the same number of natural gas workers (398,235) last year to produce more than one-third of U.S. electric power, or 37 times more electricity than solar's minuscule share of 0.90 percent. And with only 160,000 coal workers (less than half the number of workers in either solar or gas), that sector produced nearly one-third (almost as much as gas) of U.S. electricity last year.
...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/today ... le/2622029
Last edited by Aerial on Tue May 09, 2017 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Resilience is accepting your new reality, even if it's less good than the one you had before - Elizabeth Edwards
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by alphamale111 » Tue May 09, 2017 5:03 pm

ryan3434 wrote:Apparently it takes 57 people in solar to do the same job as 1 person in coal.


Train the coal workers to work in solar... job creation.
Veteran
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:27 am

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by Aerial » Tue May 09, 2017 5:06 pm

Ok alpha, what would be the training costs involved in training these very productive coal workers to work in the solar industry, assuming of course the solar industry could absorb a huge amount of new trained workers at whatever sites?

Job creation projects, needed or otherwise, are popular with the Liberals here in Canada but in the US I think they have more of an actual productive aspect to job creation.
Resilience is accepting your new reality, even if it's less good than the one you had before - Elizabeth Edwards
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by alphamale111 » Tue May 09, 2017 5:18 pm

Aerial wrote:Ok alpha, what would be the training costs involved in training these very productive coal workers to work in the solar industry, assuming of course the solar industry could absorb a huge amount of new trained workers at whatever sites?

Job creation projects, needed or otherwise, are popular with the Liberals here in Canada but in the US I think they have more of an actual productive aspect to job creation.



Don't know - didn't put any real thought into the numbers. I just think we can clean up our act. Less pollution = good for us in the end. I like that we have 0 smog/ warnings in the past decades... last one I remember I was just leaving highschool.
Veteran
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:27 am

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by Aerial » Tue May 09, 2017 5:21 pm

Well, as usual, and myself like you, don't know exactly everything about the potential "devil in the details". But more and more I want, demand actually, figures rather than simplistic theory "less pollution = good for us in the end". Hey, I like your romanticism but more and more, and I'm a romantic at heart as well I would say, let's see some concrete, detailed analysis from experts in the field.

There are so many factors into energy production and anyone, including myself, that want to make it into a simple one factor analysis, are simply not seeing the whole picture.

And always remember the psychological, social and economic impact of having fathers and mothers with families, layed off or unemployed for whatever reason. Working is important for many.
Resilience is accepting your new reality, even if it's less good than the one you had before - Elizabeth Edwards
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: Will this convince those with their heads in the sand?

by alphamale111 » Tue May 09, 2017 5:38 pm

Aerial wrote:Well, as usual, and myself like you, don't know exactly everything about the potential "devil in the details". But more and more I want, demand actually, figures rather than simplistic theory "less pollutin = good for us in the end". Hey, I like your romanticism but more and more, and I'm a romantic at heart as well I would say, let's see some concrete, detailed analysis from experts in the field.

There are so many factors into energy production and anyone, including myself, that want to make it into a simple one factor analysis, are simply not seeing the whole picture.


Well that reads like a dispatch from the "No kidding?" committee... So if you are given a choice of energy sources... you'd pick the dirtier... because ummm, math... Clean air, water and soil is not a romantic ideal... it's a right for every human being on this planet. Even a beagle knows not to potty where it eats but we can't seem to get past the basic idea of "stop doing things that are poisoning the very thing we need to live in the name of the $$$$ and jobs....
Of course there's details and trade offs. that's a given. I think it's pretty clear that is left up to corporate interests we'd be neck deep in it..
Veteran
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:27 am

PreviousNext

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests