• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AGW Believers Turn on Each Other

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is really delicious. The AGW believers are turning on each other. Why? Because a few have figured out that if you eliminate fossil fuels and focus on renewables, only nuclear can fill the gap. The horror! Oh, the humanity!

The new climate ‘deniers’

Posted on December 16, 2015 | 55 comments
by Judith Curry
New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club: James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.
Continue reading →

New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club: James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.
The latest bit of idiocy from Naomi Oreskes is this article in the Guardian: There is a new form of climate denialists to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet. Subtitle: At the exact moment in which we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, we are being told that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Excerpts:
After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.
But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. . . .


 
That's ironic in a way.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is really delicious. The AGW believers are turning on each other. Why? Because a few have figured out that if you eliminate fossil fuels and focus on renewables, only nuclear can fill the gap. The horror! Oh, the humanity!

The new climate ‘deniers’

Posted on December 16, 2015 | 55 comments
by Judith Curry
New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club: James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.
Continue reading →

New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club: James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.
The latest bit of idiocy from Naomi Oreskes is this article in the Guardian: There is a new form of climate denialists to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet. Subtitle: At the exact moment in which we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, we are being told that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Excerpts:
After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.
But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. . . .


Click to expand...

Hansen et al. are overstating the case, but not by much. Renewables could meet our energy needs alone, but it would cost four times more than if we used a generous amount of nuclear instead of and in addition to renewables.
 
Poor Debater said:
Hansen et al. are overstating the case, but not by much. Renewables could meet our energy needs alone, but it would cost four times more than if we used a generous amount of nuclear instead of and in addition to renewables.
Click to expand...

Or we could use the new far cheaper gas fracking technologies that may well last us 150 years or more and save ourselves a whole avalanche of fiscal grief
 
flogger said:
Or we could use the new far cheaper gas fracking technologies that may well last us 150 years or more and save ourselves a whole avalanche of fiscal grief
Click to expand...

Climate change will cause far, far more fiscal grief than fossil fuels will save.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is really delicious. The AGW believers are turning on each other. Why? Because a few have figured out that if you eliminate fossil fuels and focus on renewables, only nuclear can fill the gap. The horror! Oh, the humanity!
Click to expand...


Some have never stopped to ask what getting rid of fossil fuels, especially coal-fired power, will do to our economy. For a long time, Obama supported a switch to "natural" gas, and while the word "natural" fools some, because, of course, coal and crude oil are also natural, the cost to heat and cool one's home would go way up. Now, it appears Obama has discovered that natural gas is also a carbon fuel, so he likes it less. Much less.

The most affordable source of electric power we have today is coal. New coal-fired plants have scrubbers that greatly reduce pollution and emissions. These scientists are finally figuring out that the power grid is supply/demand -- that it doesn't store power so wind and solar generation are not a viable solution for humanity. At least not yet.
 
Poor Debater said:
Climate change will cause far, far more fiscal grief than fossil fuels will save.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe its scriptures. Its advocates would prefer to kill us with their cures first rather than to have anyone else get richer than them :wink:
 
Poor Debater said:
Climate change will cause far, far more fiscal grief than fossil fuels will save.
Click to expand...

Even though climate models are wrong, over and over?

Your faith in this religion is unshakable!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Even though climate models are wrong, over and over?

Your faith in this religion is unshakable!
Click to expand...

Here's Exxon's climate model prediction from 1982, in black, compared to actual GISS temperatures in red:

21664515715_30b2ac46b4_o.jpg


Looks like the one with the faith unswayed by evidence is you.
 
I enjoy more the seven billion humans change nothing crowd.

And while there are not great options, there are better options. Anyone concerned about Middle Eastern terrorism here should run, not walk, to the nearest hybrid dealer.
 
Yes, there has always been a split on nuclear energy in the environmentalist crowd. Hell, that's not even specific to environmentalists or liberals either. It has always been a touchy subject.

Because people are dumb fraidy cats who watched too many movies with radioactive monsters when they were younger.
 
Poor Debater said:
Here's Exxon's climate model prediction from 1982, in black, compared to actual GISS temperatures in red:

21664515715_30b2ac46b4_o.jpg


Looks like the one with the faith unswayed by evidence is you.
Click to expand...

A minuscule amount of time vs. the trends we have evaluated.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, there has always been a split on nuclear energy in the environmentalist crowd. Hell, that's not even specific to environmentalists or liberals either. It has always been a touchy subject.

Because people are dumb fraidy cats who watched too many movies with radioactive monsters when they were younger.
Click to expand...

I think what might finally make up the minds of most environmentalists on the nuclear issue will be whether adopting it will ultimately benefit mankind.

If it does then they will fiercely oppose it just like they have with everything else that humans have done to try and improve their lot over the last 3 decades
 
Those who like the idea of governmental control via this CAGW scam like the idea of nukes. That is what a nuklear power plant is for. Making bombs.
 
flogger said:
I think what might finally make up the minds of most environmentalists on the nuclear issue will be whether adopting it will ultimately benefit mankind.

If it does then they will fiercely oppose it just like they have with everything else that humans have done to try and improve their lot over the last 3 decades
Click to expand...

:roll: Yes, environmentalists have the same motivations as the bad guys in your comic books.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Those who like the idea of governmental control via this CAGW scam like the idea of nukes. That is what a nuklear power plant is for. Making bombs.
Click to expand...

Yes if there's anything those sissypants environmentalist liberals love, it's nuclear warheads.
 
Deuce said:
None of these quotes support your thesis that environmentalists are all Lex Luthor. Most of them aren't even interesting.
Click to expand...

I'm sure thats true but given the influental positions and high profile of some of these people their disdain for or species is disturbing to say the least :shock:
 
flogger said:
I'm sure thats true but given the influental positions and high profile of some of these people their disdain for or species is disturbing to say the least :shock:
Click to expand...

Why yes, I am deeply concerned with Osama Bin ****ing Laden's opinion on environmentalist concerns. Did you even read this list?
 
HowardBThiname said:
Some have never stopped to ask what getting rid of fossil fuels, especially coal-fired power, will do to our economy. For a long time, Obama supported a switch to "natural" gas, and while the word "natural" fools some, because, of course, coal and crude oil are also natural, the cost to heat and cool one's home would go way up. Now, it appears Obama has discovered that natural gas is also a carbon fuel, so he likes it less. Much less.

The most affordable source of electric power we have today is coal. New coal-fired plants have scrubbers that greatly reduce pollution and emissions. These scientists are finally figuring out that the power grid is supply/demand -- that it doesn't store power so wind and solar generation are not a viable solution for humanity. At least not yet.
Click to expand...

Two years ago we switched our home heat from oil to gas. Result was a substantial saving. Here's a column I think you'll like. just came out today.

[h=3]The Paris agreement is another false ‘turning point’ on the climate[/h]
The Paris agreement is an empty gesture that ignores the contributions of fossil fuels.


 
Poor Debater said:
"Ignores"? It's nothing but the contribution of fossil fuels -- to climate change.
Click to expand...

". . . The Paris agreement probably occasions slight excitement among the planet’s billion people who lack electricity, and the hundreds of millions in need of potable water. Historians, write Walter Russell Mead and Jamie Horgan of the American Interest, are likely to say that the Paris agreement ended climate change the way the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact ended war. But as the ink dries on the Paris gesture of right-mindedness, let us praise the solar energy source most responsible for the surge of human betterment that began with the harnessing of fossil fuels around 1800.

The source is, of course, coal, a still abundant and indispensable form in which the sun’s energy has been captured from carbon-based life. Matt Ridley, a member of a British coal-producing family and author of “The Rational Optimist,” notes that the path of mankind’s progress, material as well as moral, has been from reliance on renewable but insufficient energy sources to today’s 85 percent reliance on energy from fossil fuels. . . . "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom