Lies and misinformation of the deniers

If you can not show proof it than it is the GW promoters that are the liars and deceivers and what you call deniers are speaking the truth

 

So you have no proof just more opinions

 

I have proof that there is no cost effective alternative(s) for fossil fuels, someone would be using it (them).

I have proof that nothing is on the horizon, the media hypes breakthroughs years before they are commerically viable (usually 5 to 10 years after the break through).

 

The truth is there is but it would mean stopping corn ethanol and subsidies to farmers.

E85 can be made and be more efficient if made from fodder beets or cattails not corn.

You see it is not about the environment it is politics

 

Your post reflects an apparent and very obvious incomprehension of either the meaning or the significance of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, in spite of your arrogant, mistaken and rather hallucinatory re-interpretation of it for our benefit, but I guess that sort of response is kind of inherent in the definition of the effect, and also kind of similar to your seeming continual inability to distinguish between valid scientific information about AGW and bogus, anti-science denial propaganda sponsored by the fossil fuel industry. That you, by your own admission, don't understand the relevance of the information presented about the D-K Effect to the topic of this debate (Lies and misinformation of the deniers) is both sad and quite predictable.

 

So this is your new way to avoid discussing facts

 

I would be more than happy to listen to facts. I have not seen many put forward by you. When I first heard about the CERN cloud experiment I thought that there may be some evidence against AGW...so I looked into it.

I am open to facts and I challenge you to change my mind.

 

Your logic is retarded...Actually, non-existent is a better word. The funny part is that you have no idea how ridiculous you sound.

 

The description you posted was clear. I find it amusing that it applies only to those that disagrees with you.

Mao and Stalin, following Marx's writing, got rid of the intellectuals, because they had the metacognitive ability to see the BS.

A progressive education defines everyone a winner, and discounts achievement, preventing those with potential for skill from ever realizing it. So, when Al Gore tells those same kids, "you know things your parents don't even know", the kids think they know what they don't , and their education hasn't provided metacognitive ability to recognize Al's mistakes.

Ooooh - an attack. I don't need talking points from the fossil fuel industry.

As far as "valid scientific information", I haven't addressed the information, only the proposed solutions, which are on the same level as hiding under your desk during a nuclear attack. Cute, but useless.

Where I disagree is when the left wants to throw boatloads of money at marginal solutions, then cripple the economy by reducing energy to only what those marginal solutions can provide.

Own admission - I missed that.

That you need to find another derogatory name to call those that don't agree with you is typical.

 

When some one can show me how much warming has been caused naturally and how much by man and show evidence to back it up I will look at GW.

Right now I see no proof it is man. I see this climate warming as natural climate change.

I see no policies that will change warming. I see lots of money making schemes and government subsidies which tells me it is politics not science.

If we were serious we would stop the corn ethanol and have E85 made from non-food sources that prodce more ethanol than corn can.

How is it Brazil uses over 90% E85 and it is not available in most parts of the United States?

 

Well than show me how much of the warming is caused by man. Even better show me how much temp would decrease if mans pollution was gone

 

What does this have to do with your abuse of logic?

I doubt anybody could give an exact answer to those questions. Why don't you do some research instead of seeking answers in a politics forum? Try a science forum.

Read through the studies cited in the link below for a start.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Lols to "pre-industrial surfdom"



It amazes me that the only people who talk about living in grass huts are the denialists who then turn around and attribute it to the "warmists"

Show me ONE link that is even remotely validated as a "warmist" link that recommends that we return to "pre-industrial serfdom"

Can't find it here http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/take-action/

can't find it here either http://www.nrdc.org/action/default.asp

This one is even more radical but still no talk of grass huts

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978933976

 

Been there
Done that!
Bought the t-shirt
and the hat

Don't know how often I have posted this information

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

you have no logic.

there has been plenty of evidence posted on this forum re the "carbon fingerprint" and how scientists determine what our contribution is.

by comparison ....

how many people would not die of lung cancer if they didn't smoke?

what percentage of lung cancer deaths are caused by "natural" factors, such as genetics, and what percentage are directly attributable to smoking?

what percentage are attributable to other factors?

 

Lets see what this site says:

Spread the word:

Get Your Class Virtually Marching!
Read the Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming
Encourage Your Mayor to Take Action
Watch An Inconvenient Truth
Educate Your Parents
Spread the News
Start a Club - Start a global warming club at your school and set goals to curb your school’s energy use.
Research and Report
Speak out - Run for student government on a global warming platform.
Stay Informed
Conduct a School Energy Audit - Have your utility company come do an energy audit on the school.
Audit Student Energy Use
Take Action at Home ​

Over half the site is dedicated to getting the word out, so people can take the small steps listed below? Or?

Small reductions:

Replace School Lightbulbs
No Idling!
Use Timers
Replace Oil Burning Furnaces
Reward the Use of Hybrids - Institute “Good Citizen” premium parking spaces for teachers, parents and students that drive hybrid cars.
Carpool - Make carpooling a priority.
Plant Trees​

Do you really think this does any more than reduce the increase in CO2?

Other green activities with no impact on MMGW:

Recycle
No Waste at School Meals and Events
Review School’s Purchases.​

How much CO2 is created by sending that extra trash truck around every week?

And my all time favorite:

Cut Back on Paper - Encourage administrators to only purchase post consumer recycled paper products (including toilet paper, paper towels, napkins, etc.) at your school. Set a goal to increase it. Make a rule that all multi-page documents are run double-sided. Keep looking for ways to eliminate paper.​

Coal is buried trees, THROW PAPAER AWAY! It sequesters carbon!

1. Limits on global warming pollution

What It Will Take
Bold, visionary action from Congress. Congress needs to act now. Strong legislation that caps carbon emissions and makes polluters pay for the global warming gases they produce will mobilize billions of dollars for investment and help address our collective energy, economic and climate crises. We need to build a new energy economy that cuts global warming emissions at least 80 percent by mid-century. We have no more time to lose.​

Missed this one, did we? 80% reduction by 2050? With what technologies, solar, wind and wave?

How exactly does Congress regulate the rest of the world? High tarrifs on their products maybe (and, where do those tarrif dollars go???)

Capping carbon emissions with no viable alternative increases energy cost, thus manufacturing costs in the US. (and where do those polluter taxes go?)

What does this do to our economy, and it doesn't zero out CO2 production.

2. Invest in green jobs and clean energy

What It Will Take
Smart investments in green, job-creating industries. Investing in clean energy industries, such as wind and solar, as well as energy efficiency programs and retooling manufacturing plants can lead us out of crisis and into a new clean energy economy.​

Companies doing what exactly? Does anyone have a comprehensive energy solution. I have laid one out, but this site doesn't seem to have that person on staff.

3. Drive smarter cars

What It Will Take
Breaking our oil addiction and retooling plants to manufacture the fuel-efficient cars that consumers are demanding, including hybrids and plug-in hybrids.​

Plug in powered by solar panels? Except your car is at work when the sun shines.

4. Create green homes and buildings

What It Will Take
Making buildings more energy efficient. Buildings and the appliances within them account for 40 percent of America's energy use and a third of our global warming emissions. New buildings should meet strong new energy-efficiency standards that maximize energy savings. And existing homes and commercial spaces can be retrofitted to save energy by weatherizing and installing energy efficient heating, cooling and lighting systems.​

I have blown in ceiling insulation and installed attic fans, converted 100% to CCFL's, use a wood stove in the winter, and a whole house in the summer, I installed dual pane windows, painted the house with heat reflective paint, and replaced my heat pump with the second to highest SSER rating available. Just that cost more than my 1978 build house. In response to energy saving measures, or local utility has been nice enough to keep upping their rates to meet operating expenses - so I still pay $300 a month.

How much doe you expect people to pay to build green? To retrofit green? With little to no savings?

5. Build better communities and transportation networks

What It Will Take
Building walkable communities near transportation hubs instead of far-flung, car-dependent suburbs. We also need to invest in and expand public transit -- such as commuter rail -- to give people real transportation choices.​

What do we do with the existing suburbs?
How green are the busses and trains running less than 10% full?

1.1. Dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions

In many cases, dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions can be achieved merely by electrifying transport and shifting to generation of energy by clean facilities such as solar panels and wind turbines. Each nation should aim to reduce their emissions by a minimum of 8% per year over the next ten years, based on their 2009 emissions, and by 80% by 2020.

1.2. Carbon must also be actively removed from the atmosphere and the oceans

A study at the University of Calgary concludes that, even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere, the West Antarctic ice sheet will still eventually collapse (by the year 3000), causing a global sea level rise of at least four meters. This means that - apart from reducing emissions - there should be additional efforts to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and the oceans, in order to get CO2 down to levels as pictured on the above graph.

Carbon is naturally removed from the atmosphere and the oceans by vegetation, so it makes sense to protect forests and encourage their growth. There are ways to reduce ocean acidification, such as by adding lime to seawater, as discussed at this geoengineering blog and group. Carbon capture from ambient air and pyrolysis of surplus biomass with biochar burial are some of the most promising methods to further remove carbon from the atmosphere. Biochar can also help with afforestation and prevent deforestation and land degradation. Funding of carbon air capture could be raised through fees on jet fuel.

All nations should commit to such initiatives — care should be taken that emission reductions are not substituted by carbon removal or vice versa. ​

That 80% number pops up again, by 2020, globally. How exactly does that get done? At what cost?

Sorry, sounds like grass huts to me.....

 

Replacing lightbulbs, no idling, reward use of hybrids, and carpooling implies no 18th century candles nor horse and buggies.

Irrelevant to Bowerbird's point: that warmists do not want a return to "pre-industrial serfdom"

Not following your logic. Why would an extra trash truck sent around every week.

Irrelevant to Bowerbird's point: that warmists do not want a return to "pre-industrial serfdom"

still no mention of ""pre-industrial serfdom" or anything resembling it.

still no mention of ""pre-industrial serfdom" or anything resembling it.

still no mention of ""pre-industrial serfdom" or anything resembling it.
Sounds like awfully high tech grass huts to me.

 

Then AlGore, the IPCC scientists, and all the propaganda sources, have done their job in blinding you reality.

How much did gasoline use go down when prices hit $5? Not even 20%, because that was all the non-critical driving people did.

What price is required for gasoline usage to drop to 20% of today? $10, $30? How much do you have to pay for gasoline to make too expensive to go to work? To drop your kids off at school, to shop for (now much more expensive) food?

Why is food more expensive, how does your grocery store stock it shelves with only 20% of the deliveries?

Or, is the world going to shift to wind power charged electric cars? By 2020? Even 2050?

Grass huts!

 

What does any of that have to do with "pre-industrial serfdom"?

Focus! "pre-industrial serfdom" is the topic being discussed.

 

Yes it is.

Please describe your world based on 20% of the current energy.

 

A few things:
1) Yet what is?
2) "We need to build a new energy economy that cuts global warming emissions at least 80 percent by mid-century."and
"Each nation should aim to reduce their emissions by a minimum of 8% per year over the next ten years, based on their 2009 emissions, and by 80% by 2020"
How do you get from 80% reduction in emissions to 80% reduction in energy use?
3) you still have not linked to a "warmist" site that states (not an inference by you) that "warmists" solution "to "save the planet", for the planet to be perpetually trapped in pre-industrial serfdom, with environmentalist the new clergy elite?

 

?!?

And, this magic "energy economy" is powered by?

PV maxes out at 45%, (there is no good storage method) and requires covering pretty much every roof on the planet. Stirling cycle is more efficient, until you add melted salt storage - and that require$ tracking, $olar concentrator$.

Wind? Tidal and wave?

What is the cost per KW/H for alternative energy?

You don't even have cost effective technology, let alone the time to deploy it.

Non-CO2 emitting energy makes up a small portion of the current, and far less of the near future power generation in China and India.

How many nuclear or hydro projects are waiting approval? How many have even been drawn up? Will there be enough going on line each year to meet an 8% reduction? How many will be on line by 2020? By 2050? Gotta watch out for the tree huggers standing in the way.

What do you do about fuel for transportation?

I learned a long time ago when people attack, most people defend, no real communication takes place.

Read my posts on methane hydrates. My concern is positive feedback warming, no matter the initial cause. That using of methane hydrates for energy solves a big part of the MMGW crowds concern, except they don't understand it is renewable. How educated of them.

Transportation fuel, biofuel from algae. But, that is a way off. The non-oil part of the algae can fuel coal fired plants.

You have no concrete answers, just important sounding talking points with a vague basis behind them.

You have no cost information, to create the power plants, to supply the power.

You have an unrealistic timeline. Remember, the first oil embargo was 40 years ago, and cars have only doubled fuel efficiency. The low hanging fruit has been picked, and you want to increase cars to 200MPG?

Grass huts by 2020....

 

Linky???

Now nobody - not even the more radical sites I linked to - is asking everyone to do this all at once

What is being asked is that we actually INCREASE the innovation around this to find solutions

Now two questions to think about

A) does is make ANY sense that our current (no pun intended) electricity system has NO storage capacity (google CME and get worried)
b) Does is make ANY sense that we are piping electricity some times hundreds of kilometres to end point users such as processors on farms

Then read this http://www.pdenergy.com/pdfs/Gills_Onions_Prudent_Energy_White_Paper.pdf

Admittedly this white paper is from the company selling the VRB's but we are talking about a SAVING of $700,000 per annum in electricity costs alone

Hmmmm - that does not sound like "pre-industrial serfdom" to me. In fact it sounds like a bloody good idea that has a LOT of advantages

Would it be the answer to everything?

OF COURSE NOT!! and NO ONE is saying it will be

Again we are looking at reduction not replacement

Coming down nicely thank-you

Don't you believe it. China is WAY ahead on plans for renewables (why the heck do you think they built all those dams?) Mostly though because coal COSTS and good coal, which they ship from Australia, costs even more

Don't know I am not American - but again who said that was the only way to go?

We Aussies learnt to innovate about using least fuel to get most transport YEARS ago



Now THAT is a TRUCK!!

Sorry - who said this was not being looked into? New Scientist alone has run multiple articles on this and even Wiki has more information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

Again no-one is demanding that all petrol be exchanged to bio-fuel tomorrow but when peak oil happens it would be nice to have an alternative handy

No the only ones with an unrealistic time frame are those who are insisting that the goal posts are grass huts by 2020

It is an old ploy move the goal posts waaaaay off the field (in this case they are in high orbit - around Uranus by the smell of things) and then insist that the choice of placement was the oppositions goal in the first place

Sorry but not even the most ardent denialist really believes the grass hut hypothesis

 

Your links, the second said by 2050, the third by 2020. The first didn't provide any details.

As you point out below, there has been a lot of investigation to date, nothing suitable for 2020.

One of the reasons I like home based natural gas co-generators.

$700K per annum is impressive, until you read the paper. Their energy consumption remained the same, they just lowered their peak demand during peak hours, to keep their rates much lower.

As best I understood the paper, the energy storage just supplied the very short, but high, peak demand.

Nice concept, but not suitable for 14+ hours needed to store photovotaic power.

If you are talking about VRB, it doesn't answer the storage question, just peak suppression. True storage requires something like filling the lake behind Hover dam from PV's, so power is available at night.

Globally? Not according to this paper:

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/energy_background_en.pdf

Europe remains flat out to 2035, fossil fuel use will drop from a current of 80% to 70% by 2030.

Except the paper above shows China's energy use doubling.

China is going for the lowest price, and will adopt green tech only when there is no alternative.

Doesn't matter where on the planet you are, MMGW is a global issue.

By 2050, there are no other technologies mature enough to reduce CO2 production by 80% without reducing available energy by the same 80%? Too late for 2020.

What is Australia's energy strategy? According to this, a little over 5% is renewable.

http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/Documents/facts-stats-pubs/Energy-in-Australia-2011.pdf

Despite all the uranium being mined, no nuclear power?

That is a start.

Where does that show up in the MMGW propaganda? Do they note it is a renewable resource?

We agree, that isn't my time-line, it was yours.

My concern about peak oil is far more the grass hut (return to poverty) than MMGW. I have no problem killing 2 birds with one stone.

I don't sense any willingness to cooperate on the other side, they are too caught up in political talking points.

Talk to AlGore and his crowd, I used the goal posts they put in writing.

What exactly do you think the "denialist" are defending against?

 

I think the claim she is asking you to support is

If that is not the case, then I am asking you where you got those numbers.