Not what I heard for many that I respect and they include scientists that post in this very message board.
And you are only moving the goal posts again, the fact is that the quantity of lead you are talking about is not as important as the one that was indeed removed already. The point that you were making here is the useless one.
As I remember before regarding aviation is that one solution will be to use fuels that are carbon neutral. And also, as usual when you omit an important bit of a citation, one part of the solution was mentioned in the cite you made.
No, no discussion, no ponderings have anything to do with decreasing carbon, nor will they influence the climate in any way. Ponderings are not the problem, nor the reason Al Gore doesn’t really care to decrease his carbon in any way.
You probably don’t realize that I agree with you, especially about government regulations and controls on things like lead, mercury, radiation, cadmium, arsenic and a host of other shit that people dump into the commons.
Hell, I fought against the lead replacement, not that it mattered at all. (it was far worse than lead when it got into the groundwater)
That is because they are involved in the formation of clouds, clouds are a very old problem that however is not as huge because of what palaeoclimatology is telling us, is telling us that CO2 and other global warming gases are the main driver of the changes in the past, the study actually points to more evidence of what pollution does to clouds, it is part of the issue of aerosols influencing the creation of clouds and the albedo that cools the atmosphere, but this issue was already noted in on why sometimes there can be pauses and “cooling” down of the atmosphere in the temperature record. The main point stands tough, the dimming aerosol causes is masking the warming that is taking place.
And there is the “I knew that” tactic of discussion again. That is my line in this thread already when I commented on what you had already acknowledged; but the contradictions from you keep piling up, you are just continuing to forget what was discussed before, no biggie for me. Just saying.
Your worthless efforts to describe my thinking is more than annoying. It actually makes everything you say suspect. That you can’t grasp this, makes you ineffective in many regards.
What it has to be noticed is that many of the recent items FXMastermind pointed out like the Ozone layer in reality are good examples about what we should do.
But the focus of FXMastermind was to make it sound as if one should be cynical because the politicians were wrong, but that is not the whole history.
That was just an effort in pumping up the cynicism, and needless really since what needs to be done was acknowledged already (but somehow no good examples exist :rolleyes:) so those issues are presented as examples of why noting will change or are implied to be useless, the only problem with that pumped up cynicism is the annoying fact** that change did take place in those examples and they are a part of what one calls a well developed nation**.
And our economy did not end, as Joe the plumber should tell you (but he won’t because politics guides him) doing the right thing does not mean that the number of jobs will decrease, as many on the right repeatedly tell us while mentioning also the discredited point that the ones asking for change are demanding the end of our economies.
Again, it’s idiotic to presume you know what somebody is thinking, or their motivations, it makes you ineffective. If you don’t actually know what’s going on, because you assume things, and are wrong about what you think, you are unable to actually do anything about it. It might make you feel good, like Al Gore patting himself on the back after he spewed a thousand tons of carbon into the atmosphere, because he thinks he did something to change things, but since he actually alienated people, his wrongness makes him ineffective in actually fixing the problem.
It’s why being a hypocrite makes you a joke. And nobody cares what you say after that.
Meanwhile, I’m enjoying my ultra white porch roof, it reflects most of the solar energy I do not want, back into space. It cooled things down, a lot. If you haven’t made your roof white, or are planning to, and you are worried about global warming, and preaching to others, you are a hypocrite.
Or worse.
Chu said changing the albedo by whitening what we turned black, asphalt jungles, parking lots and dark roofs, is the same as taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years.
That’s a huge change. And it actually reduces your electric bill. Fuck, I want parking lots to be covered with solar arrays. Shaded parking, and clean energy. If Al Gore did that, I would be 100% behind him. Hell, if he was actually doing anything to change things, show us the way, I would support him. Same for anyone else.
Disclaimer: I have family members who run solar energy companies. But I would never link to them.
What happened to the price of oil? It declined. There were no drastic price increases in 2008. There was a great downturn in economic output, followed by a slow recovery.
US emissions of CO2 were lower in 2013 than they were in 2007. Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA
You are promulgating ignorance, not fighting it. It would be far better if you check your cites before you made assertions (and furthermore take care to link to sources that did not consistently misrepresent the science). We can discuss worldwide emissions (I assume China’s went up, along with their output over the period.) But first we have to operate in an environment of fact and observation.
I mean the alternative is just blather. Right?
At any rate, given the failure of the Soviet Union during the 20th century, methinks those who deny the effectiveness of the price mechanism face a pretty heavy lift.
Not in this forum. Those who consistently make errors of fact beg to have their motivations questioned. I haven’t studied your posts in detail. But in the parlance of cognitive psychology, I’m perceiving a fair amount of motivated reasoning on your part.
Look, I agree that curbing carbon is a very heavy lift politically: it’s hard in the US to even pass a 5 cent gas tax to fund highway construction. And like I said the coal industry would be screwed. In other words, not all of the evidence aligns in the same direction. The latter can occur with respect to physical processes, but it is rarer in human history. For that you have to weigh evidence.
Analysts weigh evidence. PR men pretend it all points in the same direction. Ideologues can’t tell the difference.
GIGO: you have some experience dealing with the denialist community. It’s true that most of your efforts have been directed towards a handful of posters (which I suppose might be the 80-20 rule in action). But I suspect you’ve at least brushed shoulders with a wider spectrum of this group from time to time. Perhaps you have some insight that could advance the emerging science of science communication. It might even be worth your while to take Cook’s MOOC for credit. (Or not.) It’s 1-2 hours per week for 7 weeks.
One issue that puzzles me is the role of humor and mockery. Daniel Kahneman once said that, “Facts that threaten people’s livelihood and self-esteem are simply not absorbed. The mind does not digest them.” (I read that on twitter so I don’t know the wider context). Yet I perceive here that mockery can move the ball. And Barney Frank reports that humor can be used to political advantage. I’m guessing that the best strategy is a mixed one, but until I understand the underlying processes I won’t know when to use one or the other.
This assumes that I do what Al Gore is doing, no one needs to make presumptions of what that line of “inquiry” is going to.
Again, just disparaging the good examples that I presented with with pumped up cynicism is just silly. And those issues like getting clean water and sewage in developed cities are solutions that already took place and are acknowledged as having features that can be applied to the current issue as well. Going to the exercise of finding information to make sorry points that in the end were not contrary at all to past solutions is really underwhelming.
What the numbers like? A black roof is best in the winter presumably. (Real question: I’m asking for a decent link: my googling gets too many references to Feng Shui.) Some years back MIT was working on coatings that would change color with temperature, but I haven’t read anything on that recently.
Beating my dead horse, if you price carbon properly people will put the right amount of effort into such issues. Or closer to the right amount anyway.
When you said “Prices” I thought you meant “General price level”. The US did not undergo sustained deflation.
When I asked what happened to the price of oil, I was alluding to the crash in prices occurring after the advent of the great recession. Lower oil prices tend to lead to higher oil consumption. Which would lead to greater emissions, except that effect was overwhelmed by a collapse in final demand.
Horseshit. I always have a source, unless it’s my opinion of course. I don’t make up facts out of thin air, or assume something that there is no evidence for. That’s just rhetoric, IMNSHO.
Ok, so we agree that US CO2 emissions have fallen since 2008. I thought you were claiming otherwise. As for global CO2 emissions, see my request in post 271: I’m asking for a cite because I don’t want to shadow box.
Methinks the evidence for the effectiveness of the price mechanism remains pretty strong.
Actually that is the beginning of the year, by the end of the year the price was so low that it is not baseless to report that there was no drastic price increase. It should be more fair to report that the price dropped like a stone in 2008 after an increase early in the year, and that is closer to what Measure for Measure was talking about.
Nitpicking. The point is there was an unplanned drastic reduction of gasoline and diesel in 2008, reflected in a reduced rate of CO2 global increase. But CO2 still increased. Even if a drastic reduction by the US happens (which it did already), it won’t stop CO2 levels from fossil fuels increasing globally.
