Is this hypocrisy?

[Bladerunner]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

It isn't my Global Warming. It is everyone's. Failing to take action is jeopardising the future of the planet's habitability for many generations. The costs of not taking action far exceed the costs of action.

So say you but others say different

The renewable energy industry is a huge employer.

I guess so, it is spending our tax dollars to make the panels and then going bankrupt.

Few expect instant change. However work needs to be done to develop the alternatives. Like any technology, demand is necessary to promote investment. Investment promotes development and brings down cost. The technologies themselves are ready.

What you liberals are doing is trying to change the world to suite yourselves. As long as the price for alternative fuels is 10 times more than fossil fuels, I vote we stay with fossil fuels.

Photovoltaic technology as changed very little in decades. When the demand increased the investment happened and prices fell more than all but the most optimistic ever imagined. Indeed costs fell so far that rooftop PV technology is now competitive with mains supply at the consumer level.

Wrong again? It is offered but the cost of putting it on a roof, adding all the extras needed just to keep it running would take you 40 years to pay it off unless you are wealthy. The you still have the standard electric service that needs to be paid for monthly. Sure, You cannot get 200 amp service from the panels. Maintenance WOOOOOOW! LoOOOKout!, It is estimated that you have to replace a panel every 5 years. An electric car battery needs to be changed every two year at a cost of about $5,000. Who except the rich have that kind of money. You liberals want to make the middle class into the poor.

This argument is the most profoundly lame of all. The entrenched fossil fuel industries are making billions. Their influence is being used to repress alternative energy. Indeed they are frantic because the change is already affecting their profits.

Oh, here we go again. Why are you so worried about how much the rich make? The last time I checked they get 10-15 cents a gallon. 10-15 CENTS Profit. Lets see,,,,, the government here gets anywhere from $0. 80 to $1.60.

The you have the store owner gets another 5-10 cents per gallon. and there is the cost of it. Buying it at exorbitant prices from other counties while sitting on more oil that all the other countries have together. How much does one of them sea platforms cost. They then turn those billions they make back into R&D with a little exploration thrown in for good measure, probably about 10 cents. Then the rest is sent to investors as dividends. These people are the ones you detest the most because they are getting something for nothing right?

Unfortunately the ignorant, motivated by greed and primed by their fear mongering are all too willing to stand in as the ventriloquist dummies for the fossil fuel industry to tell us we have no alternative.

I am not doubting that in the near future technology with catch up to our dreams and be able to provide all kinds of alternative energy sources, some of which are still on the drawing boards. You liberals are the ones who are fear mongers. Global warming, We are going to run out of fossil fuels in the next few years. "The Sky is falling" (Chicken little). We try to make our government do this for us and at least in the US, the government is a dismal failure. Let the little guy do it and we will all be better off. I just wish you liberal would quit telling 'little guys' that we do not know how to do anything right but you are going to save us.... Oh PLEASE save us???????

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

Except substitute cooling:

Based on what evidence?

 

[Bladerunner]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

It isn't my Global Warming. It is everyone's. Failing to take action is jeopardising the future of the planet's habitability for many generations. The costs of not taking action far exceed the costs of action.

That is the problem. Nobody owns nothing. If you believe in global warming then it is your global warming. You are helping it along the best you can. In fact you are helping Al Gore, George Sorros, etc. who are making millions from the green energy When are you going to wake up. nothing has changed.

The renewable energy industry is a huge employer.

What about those that are bankrupt, what happens to the employees then?

 

[Bladerunner]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

You display a profound ignorance in this post as you spout the lines taught to you by the fossil fuel industry PR machine.

Scrubbers don't produce CO2. Combustion does that.

CO2 is a pollutant. We have raised the levels in the atmosphere by over forty percent since industrialisation. Most of it in the past couple of decades and the rate continues to increase.

CO2 won't go away in a couple of decades like other pollutants when we wake up and stop producing them like we did with ozone depleting chemicals in the 80s.

CO2 levels will persist for millennia and retrieving it from the atmosphere is extremely difficult. It will continue to heat the plant.

Moreover much of the added heat due to greenhouse gasses is currently being pulled deep by the oceans. This will change within a decade.

The Sun's output is also in a lull which will persist for about a decade. Despite this we have had 350 months in a row of above average temperatures.

Come 2025 only the most hardy fools will continue to deny the extent of the crisis upon us.

check these out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0mxL-BekLE
listen in on the man who helps develop "An Inconsistent Truth'
https://soundcloud.com/philvalentineshow/phil-valentine-on-wor-in-new

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

I ask just one thing of those who deny Global Warming.

Please ensure that your grand children and their children will know exactly the position you took on it.

 

[Steve R.]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

Global warming!!!! Yuck.
I am not a fan of global warming. My response below is not to dismiss the validity of global warming but to highlight that the advocates of global warming are not honestly "selling" this concept to the populace. Essentially, they advocate a faux magical technological solution that would have a barely noticeable effect on society. As the saying goes: "If it looks to good to be true, it isn't".

1. The mantra has been revised from the more accurate term "global warming" to the more nebulous and meaningless term "climate change". This implies an intent to deceive.
   
2. The global warming crowd focuses on CO2 emissions, a natural product, as the sole cause of global warming. We need to all be aware that the solution to any environmental issue involves numerous factors. It is quite disingenuous to imply that if CO2 emissions are controlled that global warming will be solved. It won't.
   
3. Other factors, that can lead to global warming, include deforestation and the conversion of natural habitat to urban uses. Has the global warming crowd taken any position on restoring natural habitat instead of managing CO2 emissions? For example, the US has a rust belt were people are leaving the cities. The buildings and roads can be torn down and the natural habitat restored.
   
4. If the global warming crowd is really serious about global warming, they would be advocating for population control. To my knowledge, they are not. Instead, as previously mentioned, they focus on a faux solution - controlling CO2 emissions. By not taking on the population control issue, the global warming crowd is failing to make the tough decisions, only the politically palatable issues, which are non-solutions.
   
5. The global warming crowd, to my knowledge, has not adequately addressed the issue of the third world. The US and Europe enjoy a relatively high standard of living. That implies a large carbon footprint. Well, if the third world can achieve our standard of living, the world will get quite hot.
   
6. The global warming crowd seem to believe that we will have a magical technology to reduce CO2 emissions. Yes, we will have (for a while) easy to find and implement technologies that will help the US and Europe reduce their carbon footprint without affecting the standard of living. But eventually, there will be NO technological solution without the pain of lowering your standard of living.
   
7. As a thought experiment concerning the economy. Assume that the global warming advocates get what they want, a maximum of X units of CO2 emissions. Every product manufactured produces some CO2 as part of the manufacturing process. That means that the sum of all CO2 produced as a result of all manufacturing processes cannot exceed X. Given that there will be a manufacturing cap. That may mean that cell phones, cars, washing machines, etc may not be produced because of the cap. Consequently, you may not be able to buy certain products and other products may become exorbitantly expensive (as a result of carbon trading).

 

[Dick7Access]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

Just tell them the truth. Whether you’re a denier or alarmist the progressive countries tried to make a difference. But it ultimately failed because it was based on skewed science.

Gravitational forces from other planets such as Jupiter, and noncompliance from counties who are in their industrial revolution like China, India, South America and parts of Europe like Poland were not in a position to make the changes required.

Tell them the alarmist and politicians used strong arm tactics against scientist threating to withhold vital research grants unless they signed on. Tell your grandchildren the earth is warming, and that is has warmed in the past. And cooled in the past.

Tell them the man who "invented the internet", and had a movie written about him and his ex-wife Tipper Gore called "love story" perpetrated the biggest hoax on mankind. Tell them to bow down to the Messiah of global warming or suffer the consequences.

Well said!!!

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

1.The mantra has been revised from the more accurate term "global warming" to the more nebulous and meaningless term "climate change". This implies an intent to deceive.

"Climate Change" is more accurate because there are many more effects than simply a rise in the average temperature of the planet.

1. 
   

2.The global warming crowd focuses on CO2 emissions, a natural product, as the sole cause of global warming. We need to all be aware that the solution to any environmental issue involves numerous factors. It is quite disingenuous to imply that if CO2 emissions are controlled that global warming will be solved. It won't.

There are two main greenhouse gasses. CO2 and methane. Although methane is more potent there is much less of it. Moreover the methane will come back out of the atmoshpere in a relatively short time. We are stuck with the CO2 in the atmosphere for millennia.

3.Other factors, that can lead to global warming, include deforestation and the conversion of natural habitat to urban uses. Has the global warming crowd taken any position on restoring natural habitat instead of managing CO2 emissions? For example, the US has a rust belt were people are leaving the cities. The buildings and roads can be torn down and the natural habitat restored.

Deforestation does contribute through the release of CO2 when the vegetation is burnt or decays. Restoring natural habitat helps by putting CO2 back into vegetation. However it is incorrect to claim that changed environments contibute to the greenhouse effect per se. Indeed replacing grasslands with forests in temperate regions increases the amount of heat absorbed because grass reflects more radiation than forest. Albedo is an important factor.

4.If the global warming crowd is really serious about global warming, they would be advocating for population control. To my knowledge, they are not. Instead, as previously mentioned, they focus on a faux solution - controlling CO2 emissions. By not taking on the population control issue, the global warming crowd is failing to make the tough decisions, only the politically palatable issues, which are non-solutions.

What is this "global warming crowd" you speak of? There isn't a single mind. There is a great variety of positions on the matter. Few would deny overpopulation is part of the problem.

5.The global warming crowd, to my knowledge, has not adequately addressed the issue of the third world. The US and Europe enjoy a relatively high standard of living. That implies a large carbon footprint. Well, if the third world can achieve our standard of living, the world will get quite hot.

I love this argument. "We must stop the Third World from progress. They are going to ruin the planet." No. The planet is being ruined by the developed world which built its wealth on fossil fuels. The developed world has a responsibility to assist the developing world who are entitled to improve their standard of living. Thay haven't done their share of carbon pollution yet.

6.The global warming crowd seem to believe that we will have a magical technology to reduce CO2 emissions. Yes, we will have (for a while) easy to find and implement technologies that will help the US and Europe reduce their carbon footprint without affecting the standard of living. But eventually, there will be NO technological solution without the pain of lowering your standard of living.

You are parrotting the lines fed to you by the fossil fuel industry. Renewable energy isn't magic. It is just a sensible option.

In time those who continue to rely on ever more expensive fossil fuels will find themselves disadvantaged compared to those who have developed the alternatives which will continue to get cheaper.

Failing to act will certainly reduce standard of living. The longer the decision to act is delayed the worse the problem will be and the more expensive to fix.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

Just tell them the truth. Whether you’re a denier or alarmist the progressive countries tried to make a difference. But it ultimately failed because it was based on skewed science.

What I am asking is for you to tell them where YOU stand. This why they will know how to remember you and your contribution to their problems.

Gravitational forces from other planets such as Jupiter,

Already accounted for. None of the things that deniers offer as alternative causes can explain why we are warming so strongly. When the climate models have the CO2 levels put back to pre-industrial levels the climate remains stable. The 40 percent increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the only plausible explanation.

and noncompliance from counties who are in their industrial revolution like China, India, South America and parts of Europe like Poland were not in a position to make the changes required.

China is a world leader in taking action. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, the developed world has already emitted it quota. It is up to us to take the lead.

Tell them the alarmist and politicians used strong arm tactics against scientist threating to withhold vital research grants unless they signed on.

Bullshit. There simply isn't a single shred of credible evidence to support a rejection of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If any scientist had any evidence they would be funded. Doubters simply don't have any basis for their claims.

Tell your grandchildren the earth is warming, and that is has warmed in the past. And cooled in the past.

The current rate of warming is unprecedented in the geological record. CO2 has never changed this fast except when meteors or massive volcanic eruptions have impinged on carbonate strata.

Tell them the man who "invented the internet", and had a movie written about him and his ex-wife Tipper Gore called "love story" perpetrated the biggest hoax on mankind. Tell them to bow down to the Messiah of global warming or suffer the consequences.

Climate change is not a hoax. Our grand children will know this only too well and wonder how their children will be able to deal with the problems.

It is based on science. The faith based position is that of the denialists. You do not have a single piece of evidence to back your claim. You simply repeat hearsay and pretend to understand when you haven't a clue.

Go ahead, choose ANY argument you like and provide some evidence. I will explain where it is wrong.

 

[Steve R.]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

Galaxiom; thanks for responding. I'll leave it at respectfully disagreeing.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

We have had this discussion before...

There is over whelming evidence that the planet is going through some form of Climatic Change, what is not 100% evident on both sides of the argument as to what is causing this, whether it be totally man made, or just a cyclic event..

My own personal thoughts is the combination of the two...

What ever the cause, we are now starting to see the effects in the ever increasing year on year weather "freak" events, as each year comes and goes and the events re-occur they become less "freaky" and start to become the norm...

Something needs to be done, I think part of the problem is knowing what.

 

[Bladerunner]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

Global warming!!!! Yuck.

Thank you for your post. It kind of hits the nail on the head!

 

[Bladerunner]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

What I am asking is for you to tell them where YOU stand. This why they will know how to remember you and your contribution to their problems.
".............................."..........
Go ahead, choose ANY argument you like and provide some evidence. I will explain where it is wrong.

check these out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0mxL-BekLE
listen in on the man who helps develop "An Inconsistent Truth'
https://soundcloud.com/philvalentine...-on-wor-in-new

If you really want answers simply buy the CD for "an Inconsistent Truth" There will be your evidence pure and simple.
Of course the liberal green tree hugging people can't stand the truth! They deal in hypocrisy.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

There is over whelming evidence that the planet is going through some form of Climatic Change, what is not 100% evident on both sides of the argument as to what is causing this, whether it be totally man made, or just a cyclic event..

My own personal thoughts is the combination of the two...

There is zero evidence for it being a cyclic event. If it was a cyclic event there would be a cycle that can be pointed to. In fact most of the cycles are currently on the low ebb.

The evidence is unequivocal. It is all pointing to it being caused almost entirely by the forty percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the Industiral Revolution.

Something needs to be done, I think part of the problem is knowing what.

The first step is obviously to start reducing the amount of CO2 being released. The amount is still increasing annually.

However due to the measures taken so far, last year the rate of increase in the amount released each year levelled for the first time ever. Let me try to make that clear. The amount released each year is still increasing but no longer at an accelerating rate of increase.

It is a small step but all journeys begin with a single step. I just wish those who have no idea what they are talking about would stop trying to prevent our steps.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

In the 70's it was the coming Ice Age now 40 years later its global warming. If the science was wrong in the 70's is it right now?

The science was right then and it is right now.

In the 1970 the planet's cycle of glaciation had just been properly understood in the geological record. It was realised that we were close to the end of a 10,000 year interglacial period and as such it would be expected that we were nearing a time where the planet would start cooling.

This was reinforced by historical temperature records which showed a slow decline in temperatures. However as more data became available it was discovered this decine reversed in the mid twentieth century.

The cause of this reversal has been established as the rise in atmospheric CO2.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

If you really want answers simply buy the CD for "an Inconsistent Truth" There will be your evidence pure and simple.

Like your standards of proof in your other faith, you set a very low bar for the proof in your religious belief that rejects AGW.

Such "proofs" rely on the viewer not knowing enough about science to be able to critically analyse the claims. None will stand up.

I am certainly not going to spend money supporting a denialist fool get rich. You choose just one argument that you think you understand and post it here. I will show you why it is wrong.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

People like you actually stifle the out of the box thinking required to help solve these issues.

Those denying AGW don't have any solutions because they don't believe there is a problem. Their path is to simply keep throwing fuel onto the biggest fire the planet has seen since the Chixilub Impact.

They have nothing to offer and are just gettting in the way by convincing the gullible that the science is undecided, making it more difficult for governments to impliment intelligent policy.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

No. The prediction never came true...we did not experience an ice age as predicted.

The PROJECTION was based on historical data and the outcome did not eventuate because circumstances changed from the historical reality.

I guess that's why I see so many pictures of citizens wearing surgical masks. And only a denier would say the smoggy pictures were faked.

Despite the mess of their old technology meaning they are coming from behind, China is investing heavily in renewable energy.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

So it's conceivable, the current projection may not eventuate either?

Yes, but only if we change the inputs by taking some action to either reduce the greenhouse effect (eg. cut the CO2 emissions) or decrese the amount of solar radiation coming in (eg. by relecting it back to space).

There just isn't enough discrepancy left between the performance of the climate models and the actual planet for there to be a large unknown factor capable of avoiding the oncoming crisis.

 

[Galaxiom]

Re: Is this hipocrsity

If you think nothing is changing take a look at this page.

In relation to China, Goldman notes:

...a clear shift has occurred in the fuel mix of new capacity, as the traditional reliance on coal-fired plants is giving way to a more diverse mix where renewable energy plays a greater role. In 2013, thermal generation capacity (including gas) accounted for a smaller share of new capacity than hydro, wind and solar power. As concerns around pollution intensify, we believe this trend to lead to a gradual deceleration in coal-fired generation.

Goldman also notes that in Europe the share of conventional thermal fell from 58 to 48 per cent since 2008, and Germany is illustrating just how far this could go with renewable energy recently contributing up to 75 per cent of midday power generation.

3. Improvements in energy efficiency are moderating electricity demand. Europe’s electricity demand, like that in Australia, is in absolute decline. Meanwhile in China, demand – which had been growing at rates of 12 per cent per annum over the past decade – is expected to grow at half that rate.

It’s worth noting that these views are not exclusive to Goldman Sachs. Commodity analysts at large international bank Citi recently echoed these findings:

Demand [for coal] is in structural decline as environmental pressures rise and costs of alternative energy sources decline. The shale gas revolution was the first blow, but rapidly declining wind and solar costs and the spread of unconventional gas production techniques are set to erode coal’s long-time cost advantage over alternative electricity sources. Increasingly strict environmental measures are also severely limiting the feasibility of opening new coal power plants not only in Europe and North America, but in China as well.

Renewable energy is not only ready for the change, those who continue to say it can be done will be left behind.

Every day we waste avoiding the change is a lost opportunity and a bigger problem for our grandchildren. You admit the change must come eventually, why not start now?

Otherwise for those who don't believe it, please invest your money buying up shares in the fossil fuel industries that you insist are the only future we have. This will help free up capital for progressive investors.