Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1401 - 1420 of total 2311 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 27, 2017 - 08:36pm PT
A roadmap for rapid decarbonization

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269.full
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Mar 27, 2017 - 08:52pm PT
The global temp has already risen .8C even with just a 40% increase in CO2 concentration. Since ECS equilibrium takes hundreds to thousands of years, the temp will continue to rise, even with holding CO2 concentration at present levels

You can move on to your next calamity in this case.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:47pm PT

alarming inconsistencies remain between science-based targets and national commitments.

it really sounds like a religion. Jus tryin to pull more money to their plate.

sure if you wanna lower the co2's to 1%. Tax the shitt out of it so the 99% can't afford it
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:48pm PT
A roadmap for rapid decarbonization

When scientists go outside their narrow, specialized fields of expertise, such as into politics or economics, they have no more credibility (nor do their journals, peer-reviewed or popular) than people in any other field, including astrology. This article is so filled with wishful thinking and economic disasters that it would take a book-length treatise to entirely rebut the piles of ridiculousness.

By contrast, if you libs REALLY want to take the subject seriously, then you are going to have to get SERIOUS about things like halting rainforest destruction (which you have NO more chance of accomplishing than of getting China to stop using fossil fuels), and alternative energy sources that you have typically rejected out of hand (which I expect you will do with the video clip below).



There are excellent methods for dealing with waste at this point, and there is no other mode of energy production we know of that packs so much output into such a small space... all without using water or generating greenhouse gasses.

If you really want to get serious, then you have to seriously consider widespread nuclear power.

Is it a "perfect" solution? Of course not. There IS no "perfect" solution. But it is a better solution than others.
Byran

climber
Half Dome Village
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:49pm PT
As far as human co2 emissions; they amount to less than 4% versus 96% natural.

You don't say...
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:56pm PT
Another reactor approach we could seriously develop instead of wringing our hands and imagining some economic carrot/stick approach is going to work a miracle....


Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 28, 2017 - 12:33am PT
mini-nukes are a very interesting technology idea, one of the outstanding issues is security, and I think your a little glib in stating that "there are excellent methods for dealing with waste at this point..." more an assertion, but then again, maybe you studied nuclear engineering and can comment with real expertise on the matter.

The major issue with nuclear power is the proliferation problem. While no commercial nuclear power plants have been used to make fissile materials for weapons (usually dedicated reactors specifically built for this purpose do that job), there is an abundance of fissile material made during the normal fuel cycle of a power plant.

So the adoption of nuclear power will have to go hand-in-hand with various non-proliferation agreements. This is especially true considering that the "nuclear waste" contains a lot of fuel in it, a small fraction of the material is detrimental for power production. Reprocessing "spent fuel" greatly reduces the total amount that has to be sequestered in waste repositories.

Reprocessing the "waste" into fuel is possible, but one has to contend with the very same proliferation issues. These sorts of ideas were kicked around not too long ago under the program GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
https://energy.gov/downloads/global-nuclear-energy-partnership-fact-sheet-develop-advanced-burner-reactors
but that didn't get very far, Congress didn't share the administrations interest at that point.

Later in that same administration, which promoted nuclear power, and the DOE extended loans to build two new reactors under Moniz, who is a proponent for nuclear energy.

I don't see how political point of view figures into the discussion.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 28, 2017 - 04:04am PT
more an assertion, but then again, maybe you studied nuclear engineering and can comment with real expertise on the matter.

One doesn't have to be a nuclear engineer to follow the technology, and I do. Your snide comments should better be directed at the scientists and editors of Science magazine for going FAR outside their expertise to make sweeping claims about how to "fix" global warming via utterly ridiculous political/economic "plans" that can at best cherry-pick arbitrary punishments.

The major issue with nuclear power is the proliferation problem.

Your education in physics makes you no more qualified to make such an assertion than Joe-Blow on the street. And mere assertion it is, while the facts of the successes of nuclear energy all around the world belie it.

Right now, in 31 countries, commercial nuclear plants are supplying over 11% of the world's TOTAL power needs. France supplies over 80% of its energy needs with nuclear plants and has been doing so for decades. Seems that a LOT of nations have managed to get their heads around the supposed proliferation problem. And if WE can't address it, you can count on getting nowhere in solving the FAR more complicated problem of global warming across its multifarious causes! Making nuclear energy successfully work for US is trivial by comparison!

Seriously, if FRANCE can make nuclear energy work for them, you're going to claim that WE can't???

If WE can't responsibly manage nuclear power, then we SURE don't have what it takes to solve global warming!

Making nuclear energy work has been done effectively all around the world, and there is no good reason it can't go FAR toward solving our dependency on fossil fuels in the short term while we continue to do research on additional technologies. Even 20 years ago, nobody imagined how much cheaper and more efficient solar power has become today! China already supplies about 22% of its energy needs, and the US supplies about 13% of its energy needs with solar. And it's not like we've "capped out" on what THAT technology can do for us.

So, let's get more serious about technologies we already know work, while continuing to develop others. Don't nit-pick about actual solutions that could very quickly get us off of fossil fuels almost entirely.

What I see on this thread is the same thing again and again: You libs have only doomsaying as your argument to force everybody into a political/economic mold that cannot work, but you have nothing but nit-picky vagueness to gainsay technologies that could QUICKLY and DIRECTLY solve the ACTUAL problem: the widespread burning of fossil fuels.

You are unwilling to get serious about FAR less invasive and FAR less difficult measures that already have a track-record of working. IF you are serious about global warming, then you will get SERIOUS about halting the destruction of the rainforests. If you cannot accomplish that, you CERTAINLY will not accomplish anything significant toward the grand master-plan espoused in that Science article. And keeping vast swaths of CO2-consuming forest alive HAS to be a top-priority in the grand battle against greenhouse gasses!

If you can't even muster the political clout to address the reasons why the rainforests are getting mowed down, you SURE are not going to solve global warming by screwing over the American economy while non-compliant nations laugh up their sleeves.

So, rather than to snidely nit-pick the FACT that nuclear energy CAN be (and IS) effectively and properly handled, all around the world, why don't you come up with something better than a vague assertion about "proliferation"?

Oh, and a nice side-effect to QUICKLY getting OFF of fossil fuels is that just so quickly the Middle East becomes nothing more than an irrelevant land-of-sand that we don't need to keep fighting about.

But what we must not do is penalize the average person for "consuming" fossil fuels, when the GOVERNMENT keeps us dependent on oil/gas/coal (FEEDING the fossil-fuel industry instead of MAKING the needed changes).

WE the people really do not choose whether we drive a gas-powered car, when all-electric cars lack the needed refueling grid, and while fossil fuels are still burnt to create the electricity that fuels them! Until our government gets serious about ENDING subsidies to fossil-fuel companies and MAKE an electric-refueling grid as available as gas-stations, penalizing PEOPLE for simply doing what they must do to remain productive is just ridiculous!

IF you are serious about global warming, then the MOST pressing political issue is not the cherry-picked, arbitrary, carrot/stick economics purported in that Science article. By stark contrast, the most pressing political issue is non-partisan and it is to FORCE our representatives to abandon fossil-fuels as quickly as possible in favor of the quickest possible ramp-up of alternative electricity sources, a revamped grid, all-electric cars (and other transportation), and entirely renewable powering of our houses and businesses.

We presently subsidize the oil/gas/coal industries to the tune of about $37 billion per year (actually, a pretty low estimate). You know, over a ten-year period, you can rework a LOT of power grid for approaching half-a-trillion dollars! Just END the subsidies. Oh, and by LAW tell the fossil-fuel companies: "Guess what. The era of profit is over. You saw the writing on the wall for decades and instead just kept buying off politicians. NO MORE. And you will not raise prices. Instead, you'll quit making obscene profits for forcing us to keep using something that's bad for us!"

And that commitment to energy-transformation MUST extend right down to the level of community HOAs, as just one example. The HOA for my condo-complex (as well as almost all other HOAs) explicitly disallows solar panels. Despite solar companies being willing to sign bonded contracts to do no damage, remove/reinstall in the case of any reroofing project, insure their work and the panels themselves, etc., HOAs flatly deny their residents to benefit from solar. In one fell-swoop, State and Federal governments could overnight outlaw this sort of denial, thereby allowing people like me to install solar to mostly or fully satisfy our own energy needs.

In fact, just as soon as I tried and discovered the whole HOA issue and how ubiquitous it is, I have started looking for a stand-alone house with NO HOA, so that I can move into a place where I can implement a whole-house solar system without being arbitrarily denied.

The little hurdles, like HOAs, to widespread adoption of solar power are everywhere! And it doesn't take a LOT of political will to eliminate these hurdles and encourage adoption of alternative energy sources right down to the level of individual homes. The fear and hurdles keeping us from quickly adopting MUCH more nuclear power are also everywhere, but they can be eliminated. Oh, unless we're awash in physicists speaking outside their expertise to continue the fear-mongering without offering any real solutions.

Seriously, if we can go from rockets doing nothing but blowing up on their launch pads to placing men on the moon (repeatedly) within a decade, I believe that with a united will revolving around getting OFF of fossil fuels, this nation could accomplish that (or very close to it) within a decade. And nuclear energy should be a significant part of that rapid transition.

Perhaps we could go straight at the problem and get OFF of fossil fuels, rather than to dink around with indirect manipulations and STUPID things like "carbon taxes" that actually do NOT even TOUCH the primary offenders on this small planet. If WE went straight at the problem, WE could solve it directly and again position ourselves as the ground-breakers of the planet. Where are our representatives who will COMMIT to this doable and direct solution?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
Mar 28, 2017 - 06:40am PT
Wall of text alert...
new world order2

climber
Mar 28, 2017 - 07:13am PT
Thanks for posting that up, mad.

Sadly, those hoping to control every aspect of our lives have the attention span of a fly,
and only hang on to every word their own leaders spew.
photo not found
Missing photo ID#493444
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Mar 28, 2017 - 07:55am PT
more an assertion, but then again, maybe you studied nuclear engineering and can comment with real expertise on the matter.

Just another not so subtle dig at those that disagree with him

Maybe not the smartest kid in class but likely the most passive aggressive. Mommy sit you in the corner one too many times Ed?
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Mar 28, 2017 - 07:55am PT
Your education in physics makes you no more qualified to make such an assertion than Joe-Blow on the street. And mere assertion it is, while the facts of the successes of nuclear energy all around the world belie it.

And there you have it, plainly stated. The current conservative worldview that actual expertise is elitist and has no more value than uninformed opinion.

Right now, in 31 countries, commercial nuclear plants are supplying over 11% of the world's TOTAL power needs. France supplies over 80% of its energy needs with nuclear plants and has been doing so for decades.

Maybe France isn't the best example?

The discovery of widespread carbon segregation problems in critical nuclear plant components has crippled the French power industry—20 of the country’s 58 reactors are currently offline and under heavy scrutiny. France’s nuclear safety chairman said more anomalies “will likely be found,” as the extent of the contagion is still being uncovered.

With over half of France’s 58 reactors possibly affected by “carbon segregation,” the nation’s nuclear watchdog, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) has ordered that preventative measures be taken immediately to ensure public safety. As this story goes into production in late October, ASN has confirmed that 20 reactors are currently offline and potentially more will shut down in coming weeks.

http://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/

Curt
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 28, 2017 - 08:43am PT
I don't think I was disagreeing about nuclear energy, but having been involved in many aspects of nuclear energy policy (largely from the research standpoint in waste disposal, next generation reactors and international security) and having some knowledge of the creation of GNEP, I was pointing out the social difficulty (not the technical difficulty, which are already difficult enough) to changing the energy economics in the USA.

If you would like to have a government like France's, then perhaps the USG could move forward and displace the fossil fuel economy. But that isn't going to happen, and in particular, keeping the cost of fossil fuels low (by not recovering the full cost of using those fuels) will continue to inhibit the development of nuclear power. The current pricing of fossil fuels makes it unlikely that they will be displaced in the USA. That pricing is largely an artifact of history.

My main dig was that madbolter1, who has absolutely no expertise at all in the matter, has jumped to the conclusion that the scientific press is incompetent. In any scientific matter I would favor the views of Science's editors and writers over madbolter1's, he may be an enthusiast, but he has no more expertise than that.

As for pud, he is having another emotional reaction... one of many.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 28, 2017 - 08:58am PT
actual expertise is elitist and has no more value than uninformed opinion.

If you get that from what I said, then you reveal how committed libs are to reading through their own tinted lenses.

IF Ed demonstrates ACTUAL expertise on the subject of nuclear proliferation, then I will take that seriously. However, the word "nuclear" is not a catch-all phrase in which if Ed has that word anywhere in his titles, he is suddenly a sweeping expert.

And, in fact, his ASSERTION that "proliferation" is the biggest problem with nuclear energy is not borne out by the facts. FEAR is actually the most sweeping problem facing nuclear energy in the United States, and it is not fear of proliferation. Is is fear that nuclear energy is somehow, fundamentally unsafe.

Furthermore, even if proliferation were the major problem, it's not like there are no solutions. OBVIOUSLY, all around the world, there are ways of addressing the various problems with nuclear energy. So, the mere ASSERTION does not equate to an actual problem that disqualifies nuclear energy as a strongly viable solution to particularly the United States' energy needs.

So, yes, sorry to burst your bubble, but Ed is not some "meta-scientist" that is expert in all fields of inquiry. And in this case his ASSERTION is indeed no more valid on THIS subject than Joe-Blow's off the street. It's an OPINION, and it might even be a "well-read" opinion. But MERE OPINION it is.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 28, 2017 - 09:28am PT
If you would like to have a government like France's, then perhaps the USG could move forward and displace the fossil fuel economy.

Well, as I said, if we cannot make the sort of changes in energy policy I'm advocating, because, as you say, we'd need a government like France's, then we will NOT make the changes needed to affect climate change.

So, then, I guess the whole hand-wringing point is moot. The grand master-plan in the article is moot.

Which is really my main point. The article is not science; it is assertion and wishful thinking that does NOT cohere with the realities of human nature, not to mention facts about the United States constitution.

But that isn't going to happen

Ah, so you AGREE with me. Since you agree with me, I must have been correct in saying that the article in question does not cohere with the realities that none of the authors/editors were qualified as scientists to comment on.

Oh, but wait. I sense a self-defeating argument here....

If you're not particularly qualified as a mere scientist to comment on socio-economic factors that actually give the lie to the article, then you are not particularly qualified to assess the correctness of my assessment of that very fact about the article. But if you are not qualified to comment on my assessment, then your agreement with me adds no special correctness to my correctness. But, then, your agreement (or lack thereof) has no special weight regarding the correctness of the article, its correctness not in fact being based upon any scientific assessment.

and in particular, keeping the cost of fossil fuels low (by not recovering the full cost of using those fuels) will continue to inhibit the development of nuclear power. The current pricing of fossil fuels makes it unlikely that they will be displaced in the USA. That pricing is largely an artifact of history.

These are all good points, although actually debatable. But they all simply add to the socio-economic malaise that will NOT be addressed by anything in the grand master-plan outlined in the Science article.

Furthermore, these are points you didn't mention in your initial, snarky response. I would not have disputed these points. I DO dispute the points you actually made.

My main dig was that madbolter1, who has absolutely no expertise at all in the matter, has jumped to the conclusion that the scientific press is incompetent.

I didn't jump to any conclusions about the article. It is a FACT that the authors/editors of that article do not have any SCIENTIFIC basis upon which to advocate a particular socio-economic "solution" to the problem. They have a particular socio-economic ax to grind, but that particular implement is neither produced nor sharpened by SCIENCE.

And, actually, I have the same expertise on "the matter" that you do. "The matter" of the Science article was a master-plan regarding sweeping socio-economic change. Yet, for example, physicist are NOT economists, sociologists, or political philosophers. The authors of that article were none of the above, nor were they psychologists. In short, the grand master-plan is based upon perspectives that are WIDE open to legitimate question and expressed by people who have NO more reason to have those perspectives than Joe-Blow on the street.

That article is a CLASSIC example of scientists yet again going FAR outside the purview of their actual expertise, waving the magic wand of scientific credibility over subjects that are NOT scientific by nature, and then drawing conclusions not supported by ANY scientific evidence. You cannot draw socio-economic conclusions from climate-change data. And climate scientists have NO more credibility to suggest sweeping socio-economic master-plans than does Joe on the street. And you cannot specify the "best" way to motivate and produce socio-economic change from mere facts about physics or climate.

That article was mere opinion, NOT science. So the fact it was published in Science magazine is irrelevant to its actual credibility. Cap and trade, carbon taxes, and all the rest of that hogwash are nothing but political fodder perpetrated by a leftest agenda. That crap is NOT science, and the fact that some scientists advocate it makes it no less hogwash (and no more science!).

In any scientific matter I would favor the views of Science's editors and writers over madbolter1's

And I would agree with you!

But that article was NOT science, despite the journal in which it appeared.

he may be an enthusiast, but he has no more expertise than that.

My formal training is in argument evaluation, critical thinking, and in actually assessing expertise, among other things. So, in this case, yes, I am more than mere "enthusiast" to recognize that article for the pile of wishful thinking and mere assertions that it actually is. Again, the fact that Science published it does not make its contents "science."

I have little tolerance for the magic wand of "science" being waved over mere assertion, speculation, and purported "facts" that are FAR outside the fields of expertise of the authors.
new world order2

climber
Mar 28, 2017 - 10:03am PT
Ed, I've posted numerous times the video below, but have never asked you directly how
you feel about the extreme measures globalists want to impose upon us to combat
so called climate change.

Measures which include no private car ownership, meat consumption, land ownership,
a restriction on places we are allowed to live or visit, having our professions chosen for us, etc.

View this video and get back to me, Ed?

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Mar 28, 2017 - 10:52am PT
...However, the word "nuclear" is not a catch-all phrase in which if Ed has that word anywhere in his titles, he is suddenly a sweeping expert...And, actually, I have the same expertise on "the matter" that you do.

That's pretty much like saying that you would just as willingly accept an opinion from Joe-Blow on the street about your chest pains, if the doctor offering you an opinion wasn't a cardiologist. Hysterical.

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 28, 2017 - 11:53am PT
That's pretty much like saying that you would just as willingly accept an opinion from Joe-Blow on the street about your chest pains, if the doctor offering you an opinion wasn't a cardiologist. Hysterical.

Well, do ALL doctors have expert knowledge about hearts that is not possessed by the average guy on the street? Of course. Soooooo....

BAD analogy.

A better analogy would be more like saying that I would just as willingly accept an opinion from Joe-Blow on the street about economics as a physicist, especially if I knew that Joe-Blow was well-read on the subject and the physicist was not (neither one of them being experts in the subject).

Oh, wait, that's not an analogy. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

And if you don't grasp the concept of scope-of-authority, then there's no help for your critical thinking "skills."

Apart from being basically "smart" (which does not at all equate to being wise), a scientist has NO special expertise outside of his/her training and practice. There are many basically smart people on Earth, Joe-Blow among them.

Ask Ed and see if he'll come clean on this fact: A physicist, qua physicist, has no more credibility on economics, sociology, or political philosophy than a non-scientist and may well have less.

If you want to bring in additional factors besides the "qua physicist" part, well, then, you're really just supporting my point.

Although you probably can't see that fact.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Mar 28, 2017 - 12:41pm PT
And if you don't grasp the concept of scope-of-authority, then there's no help for your critical thinking "skills."

Apart from being basically "smart" (which does not at all equate to being wise), a scientist has NO special expertise outside of his/her training and practice. There are many basically smart people on Earth, Joe-Blow among them.

Ask Ed and see if he'll come clean on this fact: A physicist, qua physicist, has no more credibility on economics, sociology, or political philosophy than a non-scientist and may well have less.

The current topic (within the climate change debate) is whether using more nuclear power is a good idea, and why or why not. I happen to think a PhD nuclear physicist DOES know much more about next generation reactor design, safe nuclear waste storage, and the potential for creating weapons-grade material from reactor waste products than Joe-Blow does. Those are all critical parts of this discussion. You are disingenuously framing this as a completely non-scientific social and economic issue--and it isn't. Don't question my critical thinking skills before taking another look at your own.

Curt
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Mar 28, 2017 - 02:19pm PT
Hey MB2, if your critical thinking skills are so great why do you think that whales did not evolve from a land mammal ancestor? You said so -- ridiculed the prevailing science, really, in the What is Mind thread a few months back. You bragged about how you gave talks about this kind of evolution and were, therefore, an expert of sorts. Seems to me, it flies in the face of your argument with Ed. You clearly presented yourself as an "expert", even though your views are laughable to the great majority of evolutionary scientists.

To tell you the truth, I happen to believe you are correct, in general, about nuclear energy, at least in the medium-term (not that Ed is wrong). You seem to have this compulsion to denigrate "liberals", which dilutes your arguments.
Messages 1401 - 1420 of total 2311 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews