Still Hating America.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have not read about this tipping point, and I am not privy to Gore's beliefs. (I have seen his movie, read his book, or watched his testimony either.) Like you, I can use Google, though. A rudimentary search brought me to this, which talks about Gore's testimony last week (?) and both political and scientific tipping points. Poke around and I'll bet you'll find more.

There is no tipping point. This isn't Venus.

The point was that the longer we wait to start cut backs, the higher the temperature will be before later cutbacks start to bring it down. I forget the exact timing, but it was something like if we start today, temperatures will rise 3 degrees over next 50 years, but then plateau and decline. If we wait 10 years, they will rise 5 degrees, but won't plateau for 100 years before they start to decline. That was at least the gist of it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There is no tipping point. This isn't Venus.

The point was that the longer we wait to start cut backs, the higher the temperature will be before later cutbacks start to bring it down. I forget the exact timing, but it was something like if we start today, temperatures will rise 3 degrees over next 50 years, but then plateau and decline. If we wait 10 years, they will rise 5 degrees, but won't plateau for 100 years before they start to decline. That was at least the gist of it.

it's not your research gore's pedalling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012801021.html first google hit:

• The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."
  
  "It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Do something=eliminate coal plants, or at least reduce their number.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it's not your research gore's pedalling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012801021.html first google hit:

• The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."
  
  "It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Do something=eliminate coal plants, or at least reduce their number.

I think Hank is right. If the Earth's atmosphere suffers irreparable damage, it will doubtlessly be the fault of the former Vice President.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think Hank is right. If the Earth's atmosphere suffers irreparable damage, it will doubtlessly be the fault of the former Vice President.

is there a limit to how stupid you are? or is this a scientist you feel is wrong? if he is right it is criminal to burn the energy Gore does, isn't it? that it is beyond any prior level of hypocrisy is not really arguable.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is there a limit to how stupid you are? or is this a scientist you feel is wrong? if he is right it is criminal to burn the energy Gore does, isn't it? that it is beyond any prior level of hypocrisy is not really arguable.

I'm sorry, I thought you didn't like people yelling "stupid" every time they disagreed with each other. You're as big a hypocrite as Gore.

You want serious, without sniping, then that's what I'll give you.

I agree with you. Gore is a hypocrite. Is it cooler now?

Attacking Gore is an obvious tactic to divert attention from discussing the real issue, and the real policy problems that we need to address (just like attacking Edwards for being rich is a way to divert attention from the effects of policies that have made it harder for poor people to improve their lives).

But Gore isn't as big a hypocrite - or "criminal" - as you'd like to think. Buying offsetting credits is better than nothing. It has some real effect, and it finances some projects that otherwise wouldn't get done, because they aren't profitable on their own or because they haven't achieved sufficient economies of scale.

In other words, what Gore does is an improvement. But not a solution. At best, he gets a C. Probably a C-. Which, when you consider that he is admonishing Americans to strive for an A, or A+, is pretty sad.

On the other hand, I would guess that most people of Gore's wealth get an F. Cheney uses as much power as Gore, right (and all his utilities are on the public dime -- remember that story, from a few years back?). No offsetting credits, no nothing. I'd rather see a few more people move from an F to a C than not.

So, you going to respond with any level of seriousness? Any thought? Any basis? Or you just going to stay with the usual name-calling? If the former, do you think any policy changes are actually needed? Or is global warming still just a big hoax, in your mind?

If Gore's book and movie were written by Ed Begley, Jr., would you say "oh, well he's actually practicing what he preaches, so let's all sit up and listen and start shutting down coal plants"? I mean, is it his hypocrisy that really bothers you, or is that just a ruse?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm sorry, I thought you didn't like people yelling "stupid" every time they disagreed with each other. You're as big a hypocrite as Gore.

You want serious, without sniping, then that's what I'll give you.

I agree with you. Gore is a hypocrite. Is it cooler now?

Attacking Gore is an obvious tactic to divert attention from discussing the real issue, and the real policy problems that we need to address (just like attacking Edwards for being rich is a way to divert attention from the effects of policies that have made it harder for poor people to improve their lives).

But Gore isn't as big a hypocrite - or "criminal" - as you'd like to think. Buying offsetting credits is better than nothing. It has some real effect, and it finances some projects that otherwise wouldn't get done, because they aren't profitable on their own or because they haven't achieved sufficient economies of scale.

In other words, what Gore does is an improvement. But not a solution. At best, he gets a C. Probably a C-. Which, when you consider that he is admonishing Americans to strive for an A, or A+, is pretty sad.

On the other hand, I would guess that most people of Gore's wealth get an F. Cheney uses as much power as Gore, right (and all his utilities are on the public dime -- remember that story, from a few years back?). No offsetting credits, no nothing. I'd rather see a few more people move from an F to a C than not.

So, you going to respond with any level of seriousness? Any thought? Any basis? Or you just going to stay with the usual name-calling? If the former, do you think any policy changes are actually needed? Or is global warming still just a big hoax, in your mind?

If Gore's book and movie were written by Ed Begley, Jr., would you say "oh, well he's actually practicing what he preaches, so let's all sit up and listen and start shutting down coal plants"? I mean, is it his hypocrisy that really bothers you, or is that just a ruse?

thank you. as i have said I think cars will be much better, and keep getting better. if 10 years is accurate we're fucked, but I would say 25 years from now cars will be much cleaner. What also has to happen is the "greener" car needs to be cheaper to cause it to be actually used by the masses. A guy scraping to pay the rent isn't going to buy a hybrid if it costs him way more than he'll save in fuel. i am confident that technology will keep improving so that it gets cheaper. AND this cheaper to operate car will then take over in the India/China hopefully.

Power plants v. green energy? Once there is economic sense to switching I think it could happen.

As to the "evidence" I assume all we do does raise temperatures- we are releasing potential energy, mostly by burning- heat is a byproduct. I have no idea about a 10 year tipping point, and I have no idea if global warming actually creates any real harm. The accuracy of recent records compared to even 100 years ago, and the apparent cyclic nature of weather make it quite possible that things like "2005 was the warmest year on record" inaccurate or irrelevant.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The accuracy of recent records compared to even 100 years ago, and the apparent cyclic nature of weather make it quite possible that things like "2005 was the warmest year on record" inaccurate or irrelevant.

Even if accurate, it is undoubtedly irrelevant (i.e. it is the trend, not any given point result that matters).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Even if accurate, it is undoubtedly irrelevant (i.e. it is the trend, not any given point result that matters).

doesn't "surpassing 1998" kind of make it relevant if accurate and non-cyclic?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
thank you. as i have said I think cars will be much better, and keep getting better. if 10 years is accurate we're fucked, but I would say 25 years from now cars will be much cleaner. What also has to happen is the "greener" car needs to be cheaper to cause it to be actually used by the masses. A guy scraping to pay the rent isn't going to buy a hybrid if it costs him way more than he'll save in fuel. i am confident that technology will keep improving so that it gets cheaper. AND this cheaper to operate car will then take over in the India/China hopefully.

Power plants v. green energy? Once there is economic sense to switching I think it could happen.

As to the "evidence" I assume all we do does raise temperatures- we are releasing potential energy, mostly by burning- heat is a byproduct. I have no idea about a 10 year tipping point, and I have no idea if global warming actually creates any real harm. The accuracy of recent records compared to even 100 years ago, and the apparent cyclic nature of weather make it quite possible that things like "2005 was the warmest year on record" inaccurate or irrelevant.

This sounds like "the market will fix it." On that, I disagree. Government needs to work within the market, first because green technologies need a leg up to become competitive, and second to balance out the subsidies that government already provides to coal and oil industries.

In other instances, government needs to remove barriers. Bush was talking 'ethanol' again today, but government policies prevent us from using sugar-based ethanol, which is the only practical kind.

Just to make it clear: I read your post as "don't worry, it's not that serious, and in any event the market will probably take care of it soon enough." And I disagree. So, are you going to call me stupid again? Or are you going to call me a racist again? It's hard for me to keep track.


eta: As for your last point -- can you think of any reasons why the scientific literature would basically ignore that argument?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This sounds like "the market will fix it." On that, I disagree. Government needs to work within the market, first because green technologies need a leg up to become competitive, and second to balance out the subsidies that government already provides to coal and oil industries.

that's all cool. drive your hybrid in the HOV lane, tax deductions if you stick solar panels on your roof, all okay.

In other instances, government needs to remove barriers. Bush was talking 'ethanol' again today, but government policies prevent us from using sugar-based ethanol, which is the only practical kind.

http://www.newstarget.com/021489.html

Just to make it clear: I read your post as "don't worry, it's not that serious, and in any event the market will probably take care of it soon enough." And I disagree. So, are you going to call me stupid again? Or are you going to call me a racist again? It's hard for me to keep track.

I'm a trial guy, I don't answer hypotheticals. If, in the future, I need to point to your racism or IQ you will read about it. I do not enjoy having to do that anymore than you enjoy reading about it. But I do think it constructive.

eta: As for your last point -- can you think of any reasons why the scientific literature would basically ignore that argument?

Well, I think we are mostly looking at the popular press. a scientific article could have some major qualifiers about accuracy of old info, and the popular press will only publish the "2005 is hottest" stuff. second scientists are people. they want to be famous, and climtae scientists certainly have motivation to want their results to be positive.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm a trial guy, I don't answer hypotheticals. If, in the future, I need to point to your racism or IQ you will read about it. I do not enjoy having to do that anymore than you enjoy reading about it. But I do think it constructive.

Fuck you, Hank. Talking with you is pointless.

Enjoy your circle-jerk with Penske. I'm done.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Fuck you, Hank. Talking with you is pointless.

Enjoy your circle-jerk with Penske. I'm done.

I responded substantively to 3 things. why the hate?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I responded substantively to 3 things.

Here's something substantive to chew on:

• The way to think of this issue is that (without realizing it, until recently) we have been running the world by borrowing enormous wealth from the future, and using it up. Global warming on its current path will hurt the economy a lot; loss of south Florida and most of Bangla Desh will not be compensated by growing oranges in Manitoba. If the Gulf Stream stops, putting Europe into it's latitudinal climate (London is as far north as lower Hudson's Bay and Lake Baikal), the devastation won't be compensated by anything imaginable, and that one will happen suddenly, not slowly. (Of course, if you are a tourist on this planet or don't care about children or grandchildren, borrowing from the future is a great deal for you, and you should give to the campaigns of Inhofe and his pals and fight to burn that coal, oil, and natural gas just as fast as possible.)
  
  There are three generic ways to stem the flow of CO2 into the air. The first is to catch it at the smokestack (for example, of a coal-burning power plant) and put it back in the ground or at the bottom of the sea. This is not impossible but it will never be cheap, almost certainly has no future for vehicles, and at the moment, it's very expensive except at a few locations well suited to it. The second is a group of blue-sky geoengineering ideas needing (and deserving) many, many years of research and development but not certain to be practical ever. These include schemes to shade the earth with sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere or some sort of parasol in space between the earth and the sun, or to accelerate the growth of algae in the ocean by sprinkling iron about.
  
  The third, and the only one we can start to use now or even soon, is to burn less fossil fuel, something that in turn can be done in only two ways. The first is to conserve energy. The second is to substitute fossil energy sources with something else. Nuclear, wind, and biofuels are good for this, but they are all more expensive and will be for some time, perhaps forever...coal is really abundant and really easy to dig up. [Note: hydrogen is not a fuel and is better thought of as something like a battery that stores energy from a primary source. Electrolysis of water with electricity from a coal plant to make hydrogen to run your car is not a planet-friendly idea, and there is no hydrogen mine.]
  
  That's about it, and every one of these options, if we use them enough to make a real difference, is going to mean big changes in the way we live, because energy will be more expensive than it is now. You could think of this added cost as paying for it instead of just writing IOUs for our children to settle. All of those changes are going to look like costs to somebody. The simplest way to think about this is to recognize that energy as (short-term) cheap as we're accustomed to get from fossil fuels is deeply intertwined with the physical stuff that we are accustomed to view as wealth: more expensive energy means more expensive stuff. Big houses that use a lot of gas to heat on big lots, big fillups of gasoline to get us to work in big private cars, square miles of highways and parking lots, furniture to fill up those big houses, big plates of steaks and fries and exercise machines to burn them off: it's all stuff that we have to learn to have less of. The people who make it and sell it to us (never mind Exxon and your gas station operator) are going to feel some real pain, but insofar as more stuff is economic growth, we are all going to be poorer when we stop looting our descendants.
  
  The Stern report suggests that the cost of a real global warming strategy is going to be equivalent to about a 1% tax on all prices of everything everywhere. This is not so scary, but note that a lot of economic activity will be diverted to technology and new investments to reduce ghg emissions and will not be available to make stuff for consumption. Economists count chemical sales as part of GNP, and they represent useful stuff like insect spray and plastic water bottles, but they also count the cost of cleaning up polluted plant sites. If you live in a rich country, you may want to practice your argument that the Indians and Chinese and almost everyone in the southern world should give up the same 1% of their very modest physical consumption as we do before they even get close to western levels; if they don't, you give up more. For all these reasons, people in developed countries need to engage with the elephant: we need to have and use a lot less stuff. Politicians who promise to get you a pass with ethanol or windmills or some carpooling are lying to you (or delusional): we're going to need biofuels, more nuclear power, more windmills, and all that for sure, but we are also going to need to do without a lot of stuff, or our grandchildren are going to do without a lot of beaches, coastal cities, water, and the like.

[bi-partisanship fairy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is there a limit to how stupid you are? or is this a scientist you feel is wrong? if he is right it is criminal to burn the energy Gore does, isn't it? that it is beyond any prior level of hypocrisy is not really arguable.

Hank,

While I don't really know you, I feel I know you in a cyber sense from reading your postings here as a longtime lurker and I must comment that, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, it is nice to see you posting more substantively and making efforts to reach across the political divide with your substantiveness, HOWEVER, I must caution, calling other posters "stupid", regardless of the veracity or lack thereof of such comment, is not bi-partisanshipical.

Focus. For the children.

[bi-partisanship fairy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Fuck you, Hank. Talking with you is pointless.

Enjoy your circle-jerk with Penske. I'm done.

FOUL! This post flies in the face of the new bi-partisan tenor of this board. It is filled with pure hate. The same type of hate that Senator Byrd and his Klansmen exhibit towards the African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, Gays, hispanics, Arabs, Asians et al. Even if the truth hurts there is no reason to engage in such hate. Now is the time for real Americans to come together in bi-partisanship.

Are you with us or with them?