Well, that’s all right, we can always get plenty of sheep’s bladders from Wales and Australia and NZ . . . at least, until the grass dies from the heat . . .
Ah, you need to check the best explanation from Science writer Peter Hadfield, aca Potholer54:
There are climate scientists that are proponents of AGW (The super-majority of them) and there are scientists and experts that are skeptics (a shrinking minority).
Scientists that are proponents and skeptics do agree in all the basics of AGW, in practice even skeptics do agree that CO2 increases are causing the current warming, but that other factors will prevent the rises that most experts agree are coming.
Unfortunately, there are also people and a few scientists that jump to a complete denial of the evidence. I agree with the science writer, climate change deniers are most of the time even against what the most knowledgeable skeptics are saying.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Yes, but you are talking here about deniers of the actual rates of the danger of nuclear there, something that even I do not agree with the radical environmentalists.
[/QUOTE]
I’m using it as an easy touchstone example of what I see as a facet of the lack of commitment that is free from AGW deniers (who, by and large, aren’t anti-nuclear types afaik).
We are talking about hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars that it would cost to make real, meaningful and substantial changes. Plus a systemic change to our (Americans) way of life pretty much. We’ve designed our entire society around the use of personal transport that’s heavily committed, at this time, to the use of fossil fuels. We’ve crafted our society around the free and relatively cheap use of energy, much of which comes from fossil fuels. You’d have to change things at an almost fundamental level, and it would cost heavily (especially if you started doing this a decade or so ago and at the levels where it would make a difference TODAY). That’s not going to happen with a few emissions taxes, unless you are going to tax the shit out of everything. Either way, someone has got to foot the bill. Again, I ask you…how would you have gotten the American people (or anyone else) on board with that, even if there were zero deniers? I don’t see any way you could do that. I base that on how unsuccessful, on the large scale, even Europe has been…and they have pretty much the perfect setup TOO make major inroads. They have a more concentrated population that the US…they have a population more willing to pay large prices for perceived public good…and, in places like France, they have the ability to over ride that public on things like nuclear power, if the preception is that it’s for the common good. If you could show me a Europe, after over a decade since the original Kyoto Protocols were reviewed, that had cut its emissions to below those original protocols across the boards PLUS the intended deeper cuts, then I’d be willing to concede it was possible. But even they haven’t been able to make the major inroads needed to make a real, substantial difference, or even offset the rise of places like China and India.
Sorry you feel that way, but I disagree with you here. I don’t believe that even if there were no deniers that things would be substantially difference, or you’d have been able to get the American people (let alone the Chinese, Indians or other emerging industrial nations) on board with the sacrifices needed. I freely concede that you know a lot more about the technical aspects of AGW than I do…I actually rely on your posts, and to a certain extent you’ve been instrumental in my change of heart on this subject, but I think here you are wrong, and that you are underrating both the cost and the fundamental change it would take to radically change our CO2 emissions. We COULD do it, no doubt about it…but I don’t think we WOULD do it, or will…not in a compressed time frame. What we’ll do (we and the rest of the world) is, IMHO, incremental change such as has happened in the last 2 or 3 decades, with gas mileage going up, CO2 emissions going down (per machine or new power plant) as technology and industry meet changing market conditions. For all these deniers and their Republican backers we ARE changing…market conditions are changing, cars are becoming more efficient and new technologies to eventually replace them are being developed. Power plants are becoming more efficient too, and despite our idiocy, nuclear power is being refined and developed that, maybe, one day we in the US will actually allow to be built. But not today or tomorrow or next year, and certainly not starting whole hog 10 or 20 years ago.
The fires aren’t the deniers fault. If anyone is to blame it’s our entire global civilization, a civilization that is centuries old with increasing use of fossil fuels.
Yet I don’t see Europe going hog wild building solar power plants. The ones I’ve seen in Spain, while impressive, don’t seem to be expanding widely. I’ve seen no evidence that solar can realistically replace coal as a major source of power. Nor wind. Sure, they are good niche sources, but it’s pie in the sky when you start talking about seriously cutting into fossil fuel generation methods. But, even leaving that aside, think about the cost of trying to seriously replace fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind (and we are talking about a decade or so ago, since we are blaming THESE fires on AGW deniers). What would it cost? It boggles the mind, especially if we are talking about an accelerated program of replacement. You are talking hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars here over a decade or so. How would you get people on board with that, even if there were no deniers? Why haven’t the Europeans managed it? What percentage are they up to, across the board, for wind and solar as an overall percentage of their electrical energy generation? Maybe 20% in some of the smaller countries well suited to such a system (i.e. with top tier access to, say, wind, and a concentrated population)? 30%? :dubious: Like I said, if THEY did it, I’d be less skeptical that we could (mind, I’d still be skeptical, since the US isn’t Europe, and Americans aren’t Europeans)…but they really haven’t. They have done more than us in some respects (but, IMHO, mostly because they have allowed nuclear in places like France while we haven’t built a new nuclear reactor in decades now), but we aren’t talking about 50 or 60% of their electricity coming from wind and solar while they whole sale replace their personal transport with electric cars.
-XT
To what degree did warming contribute to the seriousness of the fires, as opposed to say, the forest management policies over the past 100 years?
What portion of that do you attribute to man’s role in global warming?
On what evidence do you base those numbers?
What steps do you think could have been taken by man, and the deniers, that would have caused the trees to not go up in smoke?
I will let Republican scientist Richard Alley explain that most of the “problems” that you are reporting are exaggerations:
The latest reports are that right now solar and other alternatives are surpassing more than 10 percent of the energy needs in Germany. Once again, that level was obtained in no small part to subsidies to solar and wind power deployment.
Actually the latest polls do show that most Americans agree in doing something,
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026803/gauging-public-opinion-on-climate-change-policy
So why is then the reason that in government we are not doing the right thing?
What is appalling is that many Americans, specially Republicans are not paying attention on what the current crop of republicans that are getting elected actually believe, it is not in science and the congrescritters are indeed the useful idiots of the energy companies.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/03/174833/climate-zombie-caucuse/
So, you’re not saying that it shouldn’t be done, only that it won’t be, correct?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So, you’re not saying that it shouldn’t be done, only that it won’t be, correct?
[/QUOTE]
It won’t be. As to should or shouldn’t…I think it should. In fact, I think it will…eventually. If I could wave my magic wand? Well, then I’d be standing on top of a large pyramid in sun god robes while scantily clad love muffins tossed their thongs at me and…
Oh, as far as what I’d do if I had the power? Nuclear energy and lots of it. Develop wind and solar where it makes sense. Continue to push for R&D for various alternatives for fossil fuels wrt personal transport as well as our logistics system. Modernize our power infrastructure. A new emphasis on manned and unmanned space exploration. Curvacious females fanning me with palm fronds while peeling me grapes and…
:smack:…:smack::smack::smack:
See, I always get carried away with these fantasies. That’s the thing…I think that most of that is fantasy, especially on a compressed time frame. We aren’t going to develop nuclear energy until we have to because the public has been conditioned to oppose it, and various groups aren’t going to stop pushing that opposition whenever they can. Alternatives will be researched and developed, but it’s going to be up to market forces as to what eventually wins out…and that’s not going to happen until there is a tipping point wrt the price and availability of fossil fuels and over all cost of the vehicles. And that’s going to take years or decades to play out. Same with solar and wind…oh, we’ll continue to develop it, and I have no doubt it will become more cost effective and efficient in the future, but it’s not going to scale up to meet our demand for electricity. If it COULD, then countries like China and India would be going all out with wind and solar…both have vast untapped areas for both. But wind and solar aren’t coming even close to either countries development of coal and natural gas (or even nuclear).
-XT
Again, it is a matter of probabilities, a baseball manager could demand to the ump to disqualify a home-run because it was caused by a player full of steroids, but I think the ump would tell you to take a hike. As pointed before, the causes of the fires are natural or by human error. But there is also a measured increase of the number of incidents and their intensity, to prevent worst outcomes in the future the steps that need to be taken are many but here is a good start:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
The latest reports are that right now solar and other alternatives are surpassing more than 10 percent of the energy needs in Germany. Once again, that level was obtained in no small part to subsidies to solar and wind power deployment.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. 10%. That’s actually pretty impressive…and, at the same time, it’s a drop in the bucket really. And Germany and the average German is much more willing to sacrifice for what they consider their common good, and also much better suited in all respects to going to alternatives. They are planning to phase out their nuclear. Would you like to take any bets on whether wind and solar will fill the void, or whether they will do what they have been doing, which is purchase electricity from neighboring countries? I’m betting they will purchase more electricity and never really fill the gap (or will fill it with coal or natural gas fired plants).
That’s good. And this despite the deniers, no less. However, as with healthcare, the proof is in the pudding, not the pundit…are they willing to PAY for it? My take is they aren’t. They are willing to say that something needs to be done in a poll. YMMV, and maybe you are right…if so, then we’ll see an increasing push for change, which is going to cause a greater impetus on the market (which will actually HAVE a bigger change overall). Time will tell I guess.
-XT
Of course they will have to compete with fossil fuel prices, but this will depend on the lack of a recommended emissions tax, now who will make sure that that will not take place?
Your position depends also on the idea that we should never assign the real price that we are and will pay for the disruptions that are coming.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Your position depends also on the idea that we should never assign the real price that we are and will pay for the disruptions that are coming.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not my position.
Price and the market IMHO, with perhaps changing pubic perceptions pushing for new regulations and possible taxes and such in the future…similar to how pollution controls evolved over time.
-XT
I’m betting that nuclear will get another look in a few years.
And here we have still a problem with an ignorance on what is happening with money in politics nowadays, currently the politicians that will set policy are being financed by very unsavory energy groups that finance denialism. What I see is that while they are concerned on using the court of public opinion, the reality is that they do not depend on that, they know that 1 politician in their pocket is worth more than 2 million voters.
And indeed, once we see the real cost assigned to our use of fossil fuels the rest is easier as Richard Alley reported.
Well, that’s part of the problem. You get people like the OP who make these ridiculous claims that can’t be supported and expect the world to change. Ain’t gonna happen. For him to make claims like that he has to be able to answer the questions I asked. By the way, have you seen the June, 2012, Guardian interview with James Lovelock (who I know you know is the person who developed the Gaia theory of the planet, and is considered to be the father of the global warming movement)? Not only a very smart guy, but a very reasonable one. Some excerpts:
You are not too far on the “not a very smart guy” and no, he is not reasonable, first he was a true alarmist that was not taken seriously by climate scientists, now that he has found that his alarmism has not panned out he is attempting to ingratiate with serious scientists, it has been a failure too.
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/04/30/scott-mandia-on-lovelock-nothing-burger/
Duh indeed, I wish I had a dollar for any one that has insinuated or said before that it is religion what is used to get this global warming issue going, as usual it is a peculiar “religion” the one that actually uses evidence to arrive to conclusions, I would call it science, but that is just me.
Depending on the species of trees being burnt up, these trees in question could have taken root in a climate that is as hot, or hotter, than the one we are experiencing today.
If trees had memories, they might finally being feeling warm after a long cold snap.
With all those fire-induced winds, now’s the time to install wind power in Colorado. 
“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.”
– Jack Handey
I’ll set the Earth’s thermostat if you want.
What is that perfect temperature it is supposed to be again?
They’re going to use coal plants…
However, Germany intends to become a leader in alternative energy production, and I wish France would follow this trend. And to be sincere, I’m more thinking about the economical benefits of being leader in a technological field that’s going to become of major importance than about global warming (however, France isn’t building new nuclear plants, and many existing ones are past their “expiration date”, so it will soon become necessary to decide on what future energy production policy should be).
Anyway, it might be interesting to keep an eye on Germany to see what prospects other countries might have re. alternative energy production. The 10% figure is already quite impressive in fact.