What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: climate change times are a changin'

TMQ with a pretty good piece on climate change this week.

Breaking hot air news: Last week, Barack Obama said on the "Today" show that global warming "is a problem affecting Americans right now." His appearance was timed to the release of the latest National Climate Assessment, a quadrennial document whose new edition states, "Climate change, once considered an issue for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present." Sunday, possible Republican presidential contender Marco Rubio lashed back on ABC's "This Week," saying "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate."

The National Climate Assessment began in 2006, under George W. Bush, and concluded that year that climate change was real and at least in some part the result of human action. So this is not a wild-eyed left-wing notion. The idea was first stated by the government under a GOP presidency. Here is what I wrote in The New York Times in 2006 summarizing the reasons the Republican White House became convinced climate change was real.

The latest National Climate Assessment is a political document, intended to support Obama's preferred approach to greenhouse gases. There's nothing wrong with a document being political, so long as everyone knows this. The latest IPCC report from the United Nations is political, too, in its case stridently anti-American.

So ignore the political reports and check the neutral scientific positions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science or the many studies under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. Senator Rubio, this body of red-blooded American research supports the notion that human-caused greenhouse gases are a factor in climate change.

It's strange that so many conservatives have begun to take anti-science stances on climate change, natural selection and other issues. Once, conservatism prided itself on standing for education, rationality and the scientific approach to problem-solving. But as politics has become more polarized and fundamentalism has grown (in Judaism and Islam as well as Christianity), Republican candidates discovered there is fundraising gold in shaking one's fist against science. Plus, as college has become increasingly important to income, those who couldn't or didn't attend top colleges seem to feel more resentful of those who did. Once, conservatives controlled top academia. Now that liberals control the academy, suddenly science is bad.

If you believe, as I do, that the link between human-caused greenhouse gases and climate change is proven, what should you advocate?

The president, most editorialists, Secretary of State John Kerry and the Hollywood elite call for international action. Considering the 1997 test vote on the Kyoto Protocols failed in the Senate 97-0 -- international greenhouse gas rules did not draw even one Democratic vote -- there seems no chance the United States Senate ever will ratify any treaty granting international organizations control over U.S. domestic policy-making. Obama and others who call for international treaties on greenhouse gases are wasting everyone's time. The reason the international community wants such deals is its hope that any treaty will involve billions of dollars in guilt payments from the United States, money that foreign officialdom can steal from.

Rather than continue to participate in annual international climate summits that waste public money and cause greenhouse gases as private jets from the world over converge -- for the next one the United Nations promises "bold new announcements," probably about future meaningless meetings -- the United States should pass a domestic law pricing greenhouse gas emissions. The ideal would be to tax carbon, while reducing taxes on income and capital. That would create a profit incentive for engineers and business people to make money by finding innovations. A profit incentive, not bold announcements, is what will bring the greenhouse gas issue to heel.

Smog and acid rain are declining nearly everywhere in the world, even in some parts of China, though no international treaty covers either. In both cases the leadership position was taken by the United States, which enacted domestic legislation creating a profit incentive for smog and acid rain control. The results included engineering breakthroughs (the three-stage catalytic converter) and business models (sulfur dioxide trading) that reduced these pollutants much faster, and much more cheaply, than expected.

If the United States enacted U.S.-only greenhouse gas legislation, there's a good chance breakthroughs would follow, then the rest of the world could adopt them voluntarily. Talk of treaties is a waste of everyone's time. Congress needs to act.
Click to expand...
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

jerphisch said:
TMQ with a pretty good piece on climate change this week.
Click to expand...

I really, really hate it when sports mixes with gossip or politics. Even when I agree with it. It's not the place. If you feel that strongly, write it up and put it in the NY Times.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Just going back and reading some of the deadspin articles... Man that guy is a colossal c*nt.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

5mn_Major said:
But alas, we are handicapped by <s>our conservatives</s> people who can do math who <s>believe</s> can show that alternative sources can't work...so <s>I guess we'll just end up buying Chinese in ten years.</s> well meaning people who claim to care about the environment will continue to ignore reality-based solutions like nuclear.
Click to expand...

Ah, much better.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

5mn_Major said:
"Just because we invent and use a superior technology doesn't mean the rest of the world will...except they frankly almost always do." Krauthammer is typically wrong...and is again so.



...and the US could outright own that technology. But alas, we are handicapped by our conservatives who believe alternative sources can't work...so I guess we'll just end up buying Chinese in ten years.
Click to expand...
And there it is, a productive, civil conversation is torpedo'd in one asinine post.
 
LynahFan said:
Ah, much better.
Click to expand...

You don't need math if you want to live in a 3rd world USA. I just got done taking a NABCEP class on PV installations. Solar is still way off for most locations. The technology is getting better but 1000 watts per square meter isn't much when your collectors are 18% efficient and in Maine you have an average of 4.2 peak sun hours.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

My take is to trust the scientists. Evidence of climate change seems beyond reproach. What we want to do about it however is up in the air. Of the many, many, many complaints I have about modern day conservatism is its objection to basic facts. Don't have a solution? Then just deny there's an actual problem. :rolleyes:

Where lefties are right on the facts but too strident on the solutions is on issues such as NIMBYism (no windmills disrupting my million dollar view on Martha's Vineyard) and imposing a poorly understood carbon tax mechanism.

The solutions are fairly simple but not as **** as some of the wilder proposals. First and foremost switch to natural gas for energy in the US, which is 1) cheaper than oil/coal/nuclear, and 2) harms the environment less. It would be nice if everything ran on water or gravity but it doesn't. In the meantime embrace the best alternative.

Next, and again this might not be a huge scientific breakthrough, but the US needs to speed up several programs already underway to cut emissions. Keep raising fuel standards for starters. Next, exploit more alternate energy sources that don't release carbons. Outside of Vegas, is there any reason to go to Nevada? No, so solar panel the entire freakin' state! Same with most of Arizona. Bingo - free energy (once you pay for putting the panels in). Hydro is about the cheapest energy source out there. Is there any way to get more power out of existing facilities with newer technology? Finally, conservation programs such as home insulation or smart thermostats for example cut huge amounts of demand for energy. The gubmint needs to work with utilities particularly in cold weather states to improve this.

One point about China and India. Nothing screams "lets sit around with our thumbs up our @zzes and do nothing" like the statement that nothing we do will affect the power plant construction in 3rd world countries. Wrong and wrong again. If we exploit cheaper and cleaner energy, these places are going to want to get a piece of the action less they be at a competitive disadvantage. If the US becomes energy independent watch how fast the rest of the world scrambles to catch up.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

All of your solutions have other environmental impacts, Rover, most often to the animal kingdom. Windmills --in the aggregate-- are killing birds by the thousands, including many protected species. Environmentalists are now saying that natural gas is no cleaner for the environment than other options, though it has the opposite opinion by many because it's just not discussed as often. Solar panels on such a broad scale will impact the natural environment and cause some special mouse to up and disappear. Add to that, if we put so many reflective survaces over the desert, will the reflective nature of the panel collectors cause an excess cooling of that environment? That's one of the reasons things get so cold around here in the winter - the white snow reflects the Sun's energy back out of the atmosphere, causing us to get even colder. Hydro can impact aquatic life, diverting rivers from their natural paths to suit our needs. How do all of these power solutions change the evolution of life on this planet?

Nothing anyone can propose is without other environmental costs. To say otherwise is to osterich as much as those you're railing against in the first place.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

St. Clown said:
All of your solutions have other environmental impacts, Rover, most often to the animal kingdom. Windmills --in the aggregate-- are killing birds by the thousands, including many protected species. Environmentalists are now saying that natural gas is no cleaner for the environment than other options, though it has the opposite opinion by many because it's just not discussed as often. Solar panels on such a broad scale will impact the natural environment and cause some special mouse to up and disappear. Add to that, if we put so many reflective survaces over the desert, will the reflective nature of the panel collectors cause an excess cooling of that environment? That's one of the reasons things get so cold around here in the winter - the white snow reflects the Sun's energy back out of the atmosphere, causing us to get even colder. Hydro can impact aquatic life, diverting rivers from their natural paths to suit our needs. How do all of these power solutions change the evolution of life on this planet?

Nothing anyone can propose is without other environmental costs. To say otherwise is to osterich as much as those you're railing against in the first place.
Click to expand...

In Mass, NIMBY's tried to appeal to the Audobon society to come out against windmills in Nantucket Sound. Society took a look and came up in support, saying that while there may be some bird deaths, it paled in comparison to the environmental benefits. I'll take them at their word on this.

Kindly post the environmental studies showing natural gas emits as much carbon as coal plants. I'm extremely curious who's saying that....

Special mice need to move to where solar panels aren't. While I'm exaggerating about paneling the entire state, those two things (solar, mice) can easily co-exist.

Hydro proposal is built on existing facilities (Hoover Dam, TVA, Niagara Falls, etc) not building new ones, so no new impact from my proposal.

Anything else? :D
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Rover said:
In Mass, NIMBY's tried to appeal to the Audobon society to come out against windmills in Nantucket Sound. Society took a look and came up in support, saying that while there may be some bird deaths, it paled in comparison to the environmental benefits. I'll take them at their word on this.

Kindly post the environmental studies showing natural gas emits as much carbon as coal plants. I'm extremely curious who's saying that....

Special mice need to move to where solar panels aren't. While I'm exaggerating about paneling the entire state, those two things (solar, mice) can easily co-exist.

Hydro proposal is built on existing facilities (Hoover Dam, TVA, Niagara Falls, etc) not building new ones, so no new impact from my proposal.

Anything else? :D
Click to expand...
While I agree with you on this, I also know that there are some people that will raise holy hell about it. People with opinions set in stone that won't budge no matter what you tell them.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

windmills are useless. they do indeed kill lots of birds. walk around under them sometime. and look at the size of the power lines leading out from them. spaghetti noodles.

solar shows much more promise. the military is solarizing bases in the southwest. not sure how that would work at McChord or Minot!

can anyone answer this question for me? over the history of the earth we have had periods of warming, periods of having no ice what so ever, periods of glaciers and heavy winters, tropical times, cold times. what caused this? sun variations? heat from the earths core? Milanovitch cycles? and if carbon dioxide makes plants grow and pump out more oxygen won't that equal out?

thinking about the ozone hole from 20-30 years ago. scientists discovered the problem, governments looked at it and everyone agreed freon had to go. it went and the ozone hole has been shrinking every since. scientists do not yet have 100% agreement on global warming.

the simplest solutions are not environmentally acceptable - hydroelectric, drilling for more natural gas, use less electricity.

BTW I have been a believer then non-believer and now I'm just curious. I still need to know what caused warming and chilling cycles with no man around or when man had no carbon emissions.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Any theory which includes people exhaling as pollution should likely be dismissed fairly quickly. Why it hasn't is puzzling to me.

How long will it take "man made" CO2 to equal the output of a single volcanic eruption?

The Earth is a pretty mighty place. Humans are puny respectively. For us to think that we can control/destroy/impact the Earth's climate by burning oil is incredibly arrogant. True, we do need to be good stewards of our home, but to think we exert control on it is crazy. If the Earth decides it has had enough of humanity, we are gone. Plain and simple. Nothing we can do will change that.
 
huskyfan said:
thinking about the ozone hole from 20-30 years ago. scientists discovered the problem, governments looked at it and everyone agreed freon had to go. it went and the ozone hole has been shrinking every since. scientists do not yet have 100% agreement on global warming.
Click to expand...

Google "ozone hoax" and you'll see there are STILL people who don't think it was real. Climate change has 97% agreement among scientists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XYZ
Re: climate change times are a changin'

board said:
Google "ozone hoax" and you'll see there are STILL people who don't think it was real. Climate change has 97% agreement among scientists.
Click to expand...
Yes, priceless, there is a 97% agreement that the event is occurring. Once you get into the details behind the cause of it, you'll find disagreement as to whether or not man has contributed to it significantly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top