Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears...

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are dead wrong. Most climate scientists do not think it is a problem. Repeating that myth will not make it true no matter how many times you say it.

The Big Lie has been burned into his beliefs. His world could not exist without man made global warming that is going to destroy the earth. Without it, his world view would crumble and things would no longer make sense.

Originally posted by Eladar
The Big Lie has been burned into his beliefs. His world could not exist without man made global warming that is going to destroy the earth. Without it, his world view would crumble and things would no longer make sense.

You are right. The rhetoric is reaching absurd levels.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/06/18/california-democrat-global-warming-will-make-women-prostitutes/

The leftist extremists believe people will starve because of droughts. It doesn't even make sense. The Pliocene was a wet climate world wide. If we were to get a Pliocene like climate (and I'm not saying we will) there would be less droughts. That whole assertion is completely absurd.

"Without it, his world view would crumble and things would no longer make sense."

I agree. Humy's belief system is dependent on preserving the lie. Cognitive dissonance is very powerful. Without it the belief system would fall like a house of cards in this case.

Originally posted by Eladar
... man made global warming that is going to destroy the earth. .

A stupid unconvincing straw man; Including myself, nobody believes this nor claims this literally. We scientists all know planet Earth will remain here no matter what we do to climate and I don't believe man made global warming will cause human civilization to collapse; merely cause future generations some perfectly preventable problems which, even now at this late stage, I am optimistic are still not too late to prevent providing we don't allow ignorance and stupidity to triumph over science and reason.

Originally posted by humy
A stupid unconvincing straw man; Including myself, nobody believes this nor claims this literally. We scientists all know planet Earth will remain here no matter what we do to climate and I don't believe man made global warming will cause human civilization to collapse; merely cause future generations some perfectly preventable problems which, even now at this ...[text shortened]... to prevent providing we don't allow ignorance and stupidity to triumph over science and reason.

" I am optimistic are still not too late to prevent providing we don't allow ignorance and stupidity to triumph over science and reason."

You argued that the earth will be as warm as the Pliocene after an unspecified delay. You are still avoiding telling us all what solution you propose. The fact is that any solution you come up with will either impoverish people and cause them to go hungry or be completely ineffective.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150610111133.htm

The Rockefellers and ExxonMobile want a carbon tax. Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you why should they care?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"
You argued that the earth will be as warm as the Pliocene after an unspecified delay..

I didn't 'argue' that. I didn't insist it will necessarily became "as warm" at that, only that basic physics tells us there will be a delayed reaction in the full CO2-induced warming effect due to such things as heat capacity etc ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity )

You are still avoiding telling us all what solution you propose

Nope. I have repeated the solution numerous times to you and others. Apparently you cannot read; Like most scientists, I have and always have repeatedly clearly and emphatically stated that the solution would obviously be to go all renewable energy (possibly but not necessarily with just a bit of nuclear energy thrown in ) in order that we become carbon-neutral before it gets too bad.

The fact is that any solution you come up with will either impoverish people and cause them to go hungry or be completely ineffective.

Tell us all exactly HOW would putting solar panels on our roofs and building more wind farms etc “will either impoverish people and cause them to go hungry or be completely ineffective”? That is pure nonsense. For starters, it will create jobs. It would also mean some people in the world will be spared hunger if oil prices go up too high for their economies to afford buying oil. Oil dependence is if anything more likely to cause poverty, not less. It has been calculated that it is possible to make all our energy come from renewables and some places in the world have already near-enough done so thus proving it can be done thus in what sense is that “ completely ineffective”? "completely ineffective" at doing what? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by humy
I didn't 'argue' that. I didn't insist it will necessarily became "as warm" at that, only that basic physics tells us there will be a delayed reaction in the full CO2-induced warming effect due to such things as heat capacity etc ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity )

[quote] You are still avoiding telling us all what solution you propose [/quote ...[text shortened]... bit of nuclear energy thrown in ) in order that we become carbon-neutral before it gets too bad.

That is another non-solution that will cause massive poverty and people will go hungry because of it. Despite your rhetoric, renewables are too expensive. I know you have blind faith in them, but that is all you have. Go to the spiritual forum.

Originally posted by humy
I didn't 'argue' that. I didn't insist it will necessarily became "as warm" at that, only that basic physics tells us there will be a delayed reaction in the full CO2-induced warming effect due to such things as heat capacity etc ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity )

[quote] You are still avoiding telling us all what solution you propose [/quote ...[text shortened]... roving it can be done thus in what sense is that “ completely ineffective”? That makes no sense.

"For starters, it will create jobs"

Hiring people to dig holes and fill them back in will create jobs too. It doesn't make any sense, but neither does your idiotic proposal.

Did you even read this link?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150610111133.htm

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is another non-solution that will cause massive poverty and people will go hungry because of it..

I repeat the question; tell us exactly HOW will putting solar panels on roofs cause "poverty" and "hunger"?

renewables are too expensive.

Nope. For starters, not only is it affordable, already wind energy is in many places is one of the cheapest form of energy and hydroelectric often easily and massively out-competes fossil fuels for electric generation;

for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
"...in Euros per megawatt hour (2011) Technology Cost (€/MWh)
Hydro power 20
Nuclear (with State-covered insurance costs) 50
Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture 61
Onshore wind 69
..."
the above shows that over here at least hydro power is at least 3 times cheaper than Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/10/crude-oil-texas-renewable-energy-solar-biomass

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"For starters, it will create jobs"

Hiring people to dig holes and fill them back in will create jobs too. It doesn't make any sense,

what doesn't "make sense"? creating jobs? if so, how does it not "make sense" to create jobs? have you got something against creating jobs? Putting solar panels on roofs is not like digging and filling in holes; the latter doesn't generate useful electricity for the economy. What is wrong with creating jobs for making something useful?

You still haven't answered my question:

How does putting solar panels on your roof create hunger and poverty?

Originally posted by humy
what doesn't "make sense"? creating jobs? if so, how does it not "make sense" to create jobs? have you got something against creating jobs? Putting solar panels on roofs is not like digging and filling in holes; the latter doesn't generate useful electricity for the economy. What is wrong with creating jobs for making something useful?

You still haven't answered my question:

How does putting solar panels on your roof create hunger and poverty?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24450

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24450

Why does solar have to be cheaper than gas to be affordable?
Where is the contradiction in something X being more expensive than something Y but still X is affordable?
The link is obviously massively biased against solar and written by someone who is massively prejudiced against solar; and can be readily dismissed as such

Originally posted by humy
Why does solar have to be cheaper than gas to be affordable?
Where is the contradiction in something X being more expensive than something Y but still X is affordable?
The link is obviously massively biased against solar and written by someone who is massively prejudiced against solar; and can be readily dismissed as such

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is an economist. I'm not sure how that makes her biased, but maybe she is a republican like most economists are. Not that Lindsay Graham and other republicans are not for addressing climate change like you are. He probably works for the Rockefellers.

You provide a link claiming solar is affordable and we will see if it is biased or not.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Diana Furchtgott-Roth is an economist. I'm not sure how that makes her biased, .

exactly where did I say/imply that being an economist makes one biased? Are you again hallucinating whole complex conversations that never took place?
Did you hallucinate;
"and written by someone who is massively prejudiced against solar.."
as something vaguely like;
"and written by an ECONOMIST who is THEREFORE massively prejudiced against solar.."
?
Or are you simply unable to comprehend the big obvious difference in meaning because such big obvious differences are just totally beyond you understanding?
If a brick hit your head, would you notice?

Originally posted by humy
exactly where did I say/imply that being an economist makes one biased? Are you again hallucinating whole complex conversations that never took place?
Did you hallucinate;
"and written by someone who is massively prejudiced against solar.."
as something vaguely like;
"and written by an ECONOMIST who is THEREFORE massively prejudiced against solar.."
?
...[text shortened]... ferences are just totally beyond you understanding?
If a brick hit your head, would you notice?

I was sarcastically making the point that an economist is likely to know what she is talking about. You have not given any reason for her to have bias at all and I don't think you have one.

You are not prejudiced against her because she is a woman are you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I was sarcastically making the point that an economist is likely to know what she is talking about. You have not given any reason for her to have bias at all and I don't think you have one.

You are not prejudiced against her because she is a woman are you?

Solar is too expensive right now but there is a LOT of research going on looking at other kinds of solar than just silicon and there is a definite trend of solar becoming cheaper year by year.

Look at this series of charts showing the drop in solar over the last 40 odd years:

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/04/solar-panel-cost-trends-10-charts/

The thing is, this trend will continue so in 5 years it will probably be a game changer.

Also, even though hydro power is clearly the cheapest, when you run out of water you no longer produce energy and the multi year drought in the west is reducing hydro power year by year. Hydro is only converting rain water to energy, no rain, no energy.