 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 566/600) |
|
jmclemore
|
MAR 29, 03:41 AM
|
|
Pro Global warming types.
- Works in the field of "climate change scientist"
and has banked there credibility and marketability
on it.
- Work for a "non-" profit group where they profit
for the ongoing effort to remain effective and rendering
profitable organizations ineffective and unprofitable....
- Individuals who agree that our activities should not erode
the environment we depend upon to live, but has to rely on the
facts presented by the 2 aforementioned groups.
Anti Global warming types.
- Works in an industry that would be more profitable
if not for the regulations that suck all the profits out of being
profitable.
- Work for a law firm or hired by one as an "expert/scientist"
in an effort to make sure those non-profits remain non-profits.
- Individuals who agree that our activities should not be severely
limited by excessive regulations , but has to rely on the facts
presented by the 2 aforementioned groups.
I'm of the opinion that gives you every right to the cleanest air
and the most freedom you can exercise without infringing on the
rights of others. If you don't want to inhale toxic air filled with crap
that is not good for your health, stay indoor where you can control
the air quality and don't fart, sneeze, burp, exhale or sweat....
The world is filled with some seriously nasty crap and trying to
remove it from our environment by controlling what your neighbor
eats, drives and cools his house with is just foolish. It's one thing to
regulate the careless dumping of chemicals, waste water, gases and
emissions, but it's BS to demonize the average individual for the small
foot print they make during their short lifespan on this planet.....
If I chose to drive an all electric vehicle, I will do so on my own terms.
I have chosen to change the refrigerants I use. not because they are
better, but simply because they are not regulated and I can service
them myself.
I don't care if cow farts contribute to global warming.
But I'll eat more beef if that will help reduce said bovine emissions.
My Mountaineer gets 10mpg going down hill. To help the environment,
just remove those speed limit signs I will offset the volume of my emission
by reducing the time spent spewing them. I gave up smoking for my
daughters so I don't need a pat on the back for that. It's more about their
health and well being than yours or my mine ...
My Fiero gets Zero mpg and burns no fuel..... Don't get excited, I just haven't
fixed it yet. but when I do, you'll be glad the mountaineer is my daily driver.
It's not that I don't care about the environment, It's that I very little time to make
the best of it and it will be here long after I'm gone. If you think that our current
environmental regulations and policies are working, good. Becoming an example
of self oppression is not what I plan on teaching my daughters...
Oh, and I think there should be incentives to create alternatives instead of
penalties for improving existing technologies. If you want to see an explosion
in alternative energy and transportation, just loosen up the patent laws an make it
easier for the average Joe/Jane to compete in the industry instead of fighting a
patent protected shelf ornament.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 29, 11:24 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
<snip>
Oh, and I think there should be incentives to create alternatives instead of
penalties for improving existing technologies. If you want to see an explosion
in alternative energy and transportation, just loosen up the patent laws an make it
easier for the average Joe/Jane to compete in the industry instead of fighting a
patent protected shelf ornament. |
|
I don't know hardly anything about patents and patent laws and regulations. But this seems "problematic" to me. Do you have a "source" (two is better than one; etc.) that would serve as an example of how this would help to create "alternatives"..? If the patent laws are changed to have this "loosen up" effect, would that not be as likely to create disincentives for someone with a new idea to pursue it all the way to a marketable product or process?
Is a government administered and government funded incentive involving subsidies to lower the retail price of an innovative low-carbon energy technology, so that it can achieve an initial penetration of a fossil-fuel dominated marketplace on the basis of competition, instead of mandates--is that possible under the "jmclemore administration"..? If it is possible, is it actually preferable or more equitable than having a carbon tax regime that would levy a tax per unit of energy that is higher for a fuel source like coal or oil, and lower for any new or innovative energy source that "models out" as producing fewer carbon emissions per unit of energy?
How do you decide on a program or policy that some are likely to perceive as an "incentive", and others are likely to perceive as a "penalty" or a "disincentive", depending on how it fits their current circumstances? How do you manage to create a program or policy that is perceived as an "incentive" by someone with a new twist on wind or solar energy, without drawing protest from others--from anyone who is already tied to one of the fossil fuel industries--that what you are creating is actually a "penalty" or a "disincentive" that works against certain (if not all) enterprises that are currently using any of the fossil fuels as an energy source?
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAR 29, 02:18 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
.......
|
|
Lets deal with reality just for 1 moment....
Yes I am side stepping much of what you replied
with.
In reality this is not a competition between ICE and electric
vehicles. Nor is it between solar, wind, etc and Coal. The
reality is that the alternatives are either less efficient or more
exspensive.
No amount of subsidy will making it more efficient or cost effective.
Get the politics, subsidies and regulations out of the way so competition
can drive results instead of subsidies driving preferences......
There are too many people, politicians and puppets trying to engineer
an outcome instead of just recognizing innovation. If these alternative
can not compete at the same oppressive level we place on current
producers, propping them up with tax dollars will not create a sustainable
resource for our future. Besides, you would think a car that has zero
emissions would already have the advantage considering the cost of
compliance shouldered by traditional technologies. I'm not against
innovation, I'm against creating an illusion presented as an innovation.
Until, it can out perform current methods and technology, it's not an
innovation. It's a retreat from it.
Which brings me back to the "man made global warming". after all
we have done to fight the "problem", when are the leading scientist
on global warming going to show results that justifies the effort. Our
transportation systems globally have improved far beyond the 70's,
80's and 90's. Factory emissions have improved from no control to
almost complete control, capture and disposal. Power plants as well.
We have advanced so far you would think someone deserves credit
for creating an environment more friendly to life than I was born into.
But no, today's youth think it's worse than ever by our education system.
It's fine to expect things to improve and outperform the previous year(s)
and Decades. But it is nothing short of an assault to fund alternatives
without also funding innovations and advancements in current technologies.
If you can not fund both, don't fund either.
Put a check (or several) on the table and award it to those
who can produce the best results. If the results is environmental
impact, fine, measure it, reward it and publish the winner..
The whole topic of anthropogenic global warming itself is
polluted by interests on all sides. So much so, the debate
itself has probably contributed more to higher air temperatures
than many of the alleged causes.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 11, 11:39 AM
|
|
Clouds Aren’t Helping to Slow Global Warming as Much as "We" Thought, Study Says
The reflective power of clouds may be less effective at counteracting global warming than previously thought, according to new research.
Scientists behind the new research looked at clouds that contain both liquid and ice water, known as mixed-phase clouds. Most climate models suggest that clouds will better be able to reflect light into space as global warming speeds up the melting of ice water into a liquid in coming decades. Liquid water tends to reflect more light back into space than ice.
But the new research, published in the journal Science, suggests that most models overestimate how much ice currently exists in mixed-phase clouds. That finding could dramatically increase the forecast speed of temperature rise in the coming decades, with temperatures more than 1°C higher than anticipated in current models, according to the study.
The finding suggests that it will be harder for countries from around the world to keep temperatures from rising less than 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That’s the goal that countries agreed to at a U.N. conference in Paris in December.
“The evidence is piling up against an overall stabilizing cloud feedback,” study co-author Mark Zelinka, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said in a statement. “Clouds do not seem to want to do us any favors when it comes to limiting global warming.”
There's one more paragraph, and the very last sentence is a "stunner"
http://time.com/4287110/glo...imate-change-clouds/
TIME (online); April 8, 2016[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-11-2016).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
APR 11, 11:59 AM
|
|
Clouds, "not settled science yet".
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 12, 04:21 PM
|
|
Sarah "the Paleolithic woman" Palin and Bill Nye, "the science guy", take opposite sides in a new film presentation that is described here (on NBC News online) as an "Anti-Climate Change" film.
Read all about it... report here is not all that lengthy
http://www.nbcnews.com/news...-change-film-n554841
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
APR 13, 04:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
APR 14, 09:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
dratts
|
APR 14, 09:53 AM
|
|
About time. They are aware and they were more concerned with their bottom line. Makes me feel very good.
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
APR 14, 08:49 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dratts:
About time. They are aware and they were more concerned with their bottom line. Makes me feel very good. |
|
That is pure speculation and you know it. No one ANYWHERE has proven a link between burning fossil fuels and global warming. What on earth makes you believe that the oil companies have discovered something that other scientist have not?
This is the first shot across the bow from governments with an agenda to pursue. Your glee makes me wretch.
|
|
|
|