The risks of climate disaster demand straight talking

[westwall]

the crazies on the right dont like science

The crazies on the left want everyone to think

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!!

You think you are immortal?!

I'll stick with the science.

Really? When? So far we've gotten a bunch of religious morality bullcrap from you. When will you present some science?

 

[westwall]

The IPCC isn't anything but punchline anymore.

Back looking in that mirror again I see, what are you a masochist?

Ohhh, do you do third grade too, or are you limited to the second grade circuit?

 

[Skull Pilot]

the crazies on the right dont like science

The crazies on the left want everyone to think

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!!

You think you are immortal?!

I'll stick with the science.

Oh I'll kick the bucket one day but it won't be because the earth is a couple degrees warmer than it is today.

But go ahead and believe that we're either going to drown or starve to death because of a few degree rise in temperature if you want.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here's the deal, I'll support renewable as long as its "economical", but you need to come to the conclusion that a large percentage of our baseload needs to be the latest generation of nuclear.


Wind
Solar
hydro
Wave

I believe are all ok as long as it can compete and doesn't hurt the lower class. You're supposed to care as you're "supposed to be for the little guy"? At least that's what you say, but threatening to raise the price of energy through the roof isn't proving it.

The latest nuclear is a proven system that can cover at least 50% of our needs.
-Dependable is the key word. --->Needs to be a high enough percentage to take up the slack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel that we Republicans and you democrats can come together and pass such a bill. One based on economic and environmental sense.

The percentage of renewables will need to be economical. Nuclear will have to take up the slack in times of low wind or increase cloud cover. This way we could drop most of our co2 emissions.


I think if we do it this way and use our brains, we can have our civilization and have low emissions at the same time. Eating our cake and not worrying about gaining weight kind of like.

 

[Trakar]

The crazies on the left want everyone to think

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!!

You think you are immortal?!

I'll stick with the science.

Oh I'll kick the bucket one day but it won't be because the earth is a couple degrees warmer than it is today...

So you aren't immortal, just clairvoyant?

 

[Trakar]

Here's the deal, I'll support renewable as long as its "economical", but you need to come to the conclusion that a large percentage of our baseload needs to be the latest generation of nuclear.


Wind
Solar
hydro
Wave

I believe are all ok as long as it can compete and doesn't hurt the lower class. You're supposed to care as you're "supposed to be for the little guy"? At least that's what you say, but threatening to raise the price of energy through the roof isn't proving it.

The latest nuclear is a proven system that can cover at least 50% of our needs.
-Dependable is the key word. --->Needs to be a high enough percentage to take up the slack.

Generation III reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel that we Republicans and you democrats can come together and pass such a bill. One based on economic and environmental sense.

The percentage of renewables will need to be economical. Nuclear will have to take up the slack in times of low wind or increase cloud cover. This way we could drop most of our co2 emissions.

Won't get any arguments from me regarding the general energy path, its very similar to what I advocate myself. I add in a moratorium on new coal-fired plants, and a gradual phase out of existing coal and oil power plants as the the nuclear plants begin coming on line while allowing an expansion of cleaner/cheaper/domestic gas-fired systems during the early several decades of a transition away from fossil fuels.

 

[daveman]

Here's the deal, I'll support renewable as long as its "economical", but you need to come to the conclusion that a large percentage of our baseload needs to be the latest generation of nuclear.


Wind
Solar
hydro
Wave

I believe are all ok as long as it can compete and doesn't hurt the lower class. You're supposed to care as you're "supposed to be for the little guy"? At least that's what you say, but threatening to raise the price of energy through the roof isn't proving it.

The latest nuclear is a proven system that can cover at least 50% of our needs.
-Dependable is the key word. --->Needs to be a high enough percentage to take up the slack.

Generation III reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel that we Republicans and you democrats can come together and pass such a bill. One based on economic and environmental sense.

The percentage of renewables will need to be economical. Nuclear will have to take up the slack in times of low wind or increase cloud cover. This way we could drop most of our co2 emissions.


I think if we do it this way and use our brains, we can have our civilization and have low emissions at the same time. Eating our cake and not worrying about gaining weight kind of like.

Never gonna happen. The left will listen to their extremist nutjobs who believe that:

1. Nuclear power is Satan's toe jam,

2. Human beings are a scourge on the planet and most should be eliminated, and

3. The few who are left should live a stone-age existence in yurts burning buffalo shit for warmth.

No, they'll continue pressing for the elimination of fossil fuels with nothing capable of replacing them, and shoveling metric butt-loads of taxpayer dollars into feel-good-but-useless alternative energy boondoggles that repay Dem party donors.

The left simply can't be trusted with energy policy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You think you are immortal?!

I'll stick with the science.

Oh I'll kick the bucket one day but it won't be because the earth is a couple degrees warmer than it is today...

So you aren't immortal, just clairvoyant?

So you believe that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer that you're going to die because of it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's the deal, I'll support renewable as long as its "economical", but you need to come to the conclusion that a large percentage of our baseload needs to be the latest generation of nuclear.


Wind
Solar
hydro
Wave

I believe are all ok as long as it can compete and doesn't hurt the lower class. You're supposed to care as you're "supposed to be for the little guy"? At least that's what you say, but threatening to raise the price of energy through the roof isn't proving it.

The latest nuclear is a proven system that can cover at least 50% of our needs.
-Dependable is the key word. --->Needs to be a high enough percentage to take up the slack.

Generation III reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel that we Republicans and you democrats can come together and pass such a bill. One based on economic and environmental sense.

The percentage of renewables will need to be economical. Nuclear will have to take up the slack in times of low wind or increase cloud cover. This way we could drop most of our co2 emissions.


I think if we do it this way and use our brains, we can have our civilization and have low emissions at the same time. Eating our cake and not worrying about gaining weight kind of like.

Plain good sense. The present cost of wind and solar look good compared to nuclear. Nuclear is completely sensible, but it is expensive. And the safe newer generation reactors do not look to be any less expensive. Many of the other alternatives are still at the development stage, so are still too expensive for large scale deployment.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh I'll kick the bucket one day but it won't be because the earth is a couple degrees warmer than it is today...

So you aren't immortal, just clairvoyant?

So you believe that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer that you're going to die because of it?

When the crop failures that we presently see happening increase the cost of food significantly, there are people in the third world nations that are presently dieing because of that increase.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you aren't immortal, just clairvoyant?

So you believe that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer that you're going to die because of it?

When the crop failures that we presently see happening increase the cost of food significantly, there are people in the third world nations that are presently dieing because of that increase.

OK and that's all our fault. Got it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

 

[RollingThunder]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

Wow, you really are an extremely ignorant rightwing retard, aren't you?

The Changing Nature of Third World Exploitation
(excerpts)

i) Traditional Exploitation.
The exploitation of third world countries has evolved over the centuries. The period of colonialism1 was succeeded by imperialism and then capitalism. Whatever the system in operation the consequences have been the same - third world peoples have had their institutions and ways of life wrecked. Vast numbers of people have been slaughtered or, at best, enslaved and used as a source of cheap labour. Third world resources such as minerals, timber and Animals (whether livestock, fish, exotic Wildlife, or, increasingly, Animal genes) have often been stolen or acquired cheaply through bribery or corruption. Vast areas of land have been expropriated to grow cash crops - in the process of which tens of millions of people have been pushed off their land, many have been killed, all have been made landless, often impoverished. A wide range of commodities has then been syphoned out of third world countries for the delectation of consumers in the over-industrialized world: tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, vegetable oils, bananas, coconuts, timber, grains, etc.. Very little of the money made from the export of third world resources has ever benefitted third world people - except third world elites which are propped up by, and beholden to, one or other of the over-industrialized nations. The third world has been exploited in every conceivable way, politically, economically, socially, culturally, materially, etc., and no country has escaped irreparable damage. Whilst some countries are recovering from this onslaught many others are currently disintegrating.

iii) Ecological Exploitation.
As far as third world countries are concerned, the over-industrialized countries have dumped the most pollution into the atmosphere and so it is their responsibility to combat global warming. One commentator has rightly argued that .. "simple appeals to developing countries to join the industrialized countries in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions are not only naive but morally indefensible. No approach to climate stabilization can be successful unless it simultaneously rekindles economic growth and social progress in the Third World. An international effort to solve the Third world development debacle has to be part and parcel of overcoming the global environmental crisis." .

 

[daveman]

So you aren't immortal, just clairvoyant?

So you believe that if the earth is a couple degrees warmer that you're going to die because of it?

When the crop failures that we presently see happening increase the cost of food significantly, there are people in the third world nations that are presently dieing because of that increase.

Maybe we should stop turning food into ethanol at a net energy loss, then.

Or are your feelings more important than starving people?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

Wow, you really are an extremely ignorant rightwing retard, aren't you?

The Changing Nature of Third World Exploitation
(excerpts)

i) Traditional Exploitation.
The exploitation of third world countries has evolved over the centuries. The period of colonialism1 was succeeded by imperialism and then capitalism. Whatever the system in operation the consequences have been the same - third world peoples have had their institutions and ways of life wrecked. Vast numbers of people have been slaughtered or, at best, enslaved and used as a source of cheap labour. Third world resources such as minerals, timber and Animals (whether livestock, fish, exotic Wildlife, or, increasingly, Animal genes) have often been stolen or acquired cheaply through bribery or corruption. Vast areas of land have been expropriated to grow cash crops - in the process of which tens of millions of people have been pushed off their land, many have been killed, all have been made landless, often impoverished. A wide range of commodities has then been syphoned out of third world countries for the delectation of consumers in the over-industrialized world: tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, vegetable oils, bananas, coconuts, timber, grains, etc.. Very little of the money made from the export of third world resources has ever benefitted third world people - except third world elites which are propped up by, and beholden to, one or other of the over-industrialized nations. The third world has been exploited in every conceivable way, politically, economically, socially, culturally, materially, etc., and no country has escaped irreparable damage. Whilst some countries are recovering from this onslaught many others are currently disintegrating.

iii) Ecological Exploitation.
As far as third world countries are concerned, the over-industrialized countries have dumped the most pollution into the atmosphere and so it is their responsibility to combat global warming. One commentator has rightly argued that .. "simple appeals to developing countries to join the industrialized countries in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions are not only naive but morally indefensible. No approach to climate stabilization can be successful unless it simultaneously rekindles economic growth and social progress in the Third World. An international effort to solve the Third world development debacle has to be part and parcel of overcoming the global environmental crisis." .

Well, if they don't want us, we shouldn't have anything to do with them. They're the ones that want to sit in their shit expecting the rest of the world to help them. Screw them.

Sometimes you have to be concerned about yourself and not someone that doesn't want better. The USA is one of the cleanest nations on earth for what we produce, because we do the do. We develop the technology and work to improve unlike much of the world.

What would you have us do? Destroy our own nation in order to make the third world feel good about their selves? This is why you're my enemy and I will fight you until the day I die. You wish to destroy everything this nation has built. This I'm afraid is your real goal.

Africa won't help themselves as maybe they're not capable of doing such? Have you ever thought of that. O'nooo's that would be evil. Time to do or don't. Not our fault if they don't.

Either way, we're going to have to focus on feeding our population if this shit is real. We may not be able to do anything for the third world.

If it wasn't for East Asians, whites and people that do work to advance themselves. I'm afraid these morons wouldn't have much of anything as they did thousands of years ago.

 

[IGetItAlready]

The risks of climate disaster demand straight talking
The risks of climate disaster demand straight talking - FT.com

By Howard Covington and Chris Rapley

These pages often focus on how the eurozone crisis will play out. Yet within a decade, this crisis will resolve itself one way or another. Meanwhile, the more important climate crisis gathers momentum with hardly a word on where it will lead. This is partly because climate change has slipped from the public agenda. But there is also, we suspect, a concern that climate is too contentious and complex a topic for a non-expert commentator to tackle. There may also be a fear that any honest appraisal of the possible course of events risks the charge of alarmism.
In our view, the first is not the case and the second is a poor excuse...

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. The risks of climate disaster demand straight talking - FT.com

(massive snip of material that deserves to be read)

...The evidence suggests that humanity is locked into a course that it has limited capacity or appetite to alter. Modern economies are built on fossil-fuelled growth. Changing this model materially and quickly has proved to be untenable in the absence of a disaster. Business-as-usual emissions growth is the consequence. This may well produce a disaster that we will be powerless to redress.
Those with a more optimistic view of human behaviour or of the impact of new technologies and practices may see better prospects of meaningful action to prevent such a disaster. They must be encouraged. Yet we must also prepare for the challenging times ahead. The Science Museum in London plans to create a forum for the public to discuss the issues with leading climate scientists. Such efforts are essential. We must begin to discuss the risks and impacts of a climate disaster, since our institutions and processes appear incapable of preventing it.

The writers are respectively a trustee of London’s Science Museum and chairman of the UK’s national mathematics research institute at Cambridge, and a professor of climate science at University College London.

our limitations and potential are regulated by the capabilities of the least among us.

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate.

The end doesn't always justify the means and if those means are rooted in deception the desired end will never be realized. People aren't as dumb as many would hope.

Now all the "debate" seems to be between two polar opposite, opposing views attempting to marginalize one another.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You could give trillions of dollars to someone, but if that someone doesn't want(or can't) to better themselves...Well, you just dropped it down the crapper.

Called idiocy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.............a k00k lefty requesting "straight talk".


s0n........you guys dont think straight, which is the first prerequisite to straight talk. When "results" and "costs" are not a factor to one party in a debate, there can be no straight talk.


All I see around here is a bunch of k00ks pointing to the "consensus science"..........and these same people are advocating for the world spending 76 trillion to go green to save the world.



LOL.........and this guy is requesting "straight talk".

 

[flacaltenn]

We need to worry about ourselves and the third world needs to worry about theirs...Maybe we could give them some seed and modern farming equipment, but that's all we should do.

A people that can't help themselves, you have to start asking seriously questions about.

Wow, you really are an extremely ignorant rightwing retard, aren't you?

The Changing Nature of Third World Exploitation
(excerpts)

i) Traditional Exploitation.
The exploitation of third world countries has evolved over the centuries. The period of colonialism1 was succeeded by imperialism and then capitalism. Whatever the system in operation the consequences have been the same - third world peoples have had their institutions and ways of life wrecked. Vast numbers of people have been slaughtered or, at best, enslaved and used as a source of cheap labour. Third world resources such as minerals, timber and Animals (whether livestock, fish, exotic Wildlife, or, increasingly, Animal genes) have often been stolen or acquired cheaply through bribery or corruption. Vast areas of land have been expropriated to grow cash crops - in the process of which tens of millions of people have been pushed off their land, many have been killed, all have been made landless, often impoverished. A wide range of commodities has then been syphoned out of third world countries for the delectation of consumers in the over-industrialized world: tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, vegetable oils, bananas, coconuts, timber, grains, etc.. Very little of the money made from the export of third world resources has ever benefitted third world people - except third world elites which are propped up by, and beholden to, one or other of the over-industrialized nations. The third world has been exploited in every conceivable way, politically, economically, socially, culturally, materially, etc., and no country has escaped irreparable damage. Whilst some countries are recovering from this onslaught many others are currently disintegrating.

iii) Ecological Exploitation.
As far as third world countries are concerned, the over-industrialized countries have dumped the most pollution into the atmosphere and so it is their responsibility to combat global warming. One commentator has rightly argued that .. "simple appeals to developing countries to join the industrialized countries in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions are not only naive but morally indefensible. No approach to climate stabilization can be successful unless it simultaneously rekindles economic growth and social progress in the Third World. An international effort to solve the Third world development debacle has to be part and parcel of overcoming the global environmental crisis." .

Ah yes.. the evil capitalists ruined paradise argument. I figure you'll live long enough to BEG that your grandkids have as much opportunity and success as the middle class Chinese.

All you really need to know about suffering in the 3rd world is that CAPITAL and KNOW-HOW are the tools to lift these folks out of poverty. And their BIGGEST enemy -- particularly in Africa ain't Shell or Nestle.. It's marxist morons like Mugabe in Zimbawe who took the BreadBasket of Africa AWAY from the "white devils" and turned the country into a slow rotting flea infested corpse. Run by cronies and great uncles with no knowledge of anything other than racism, hate and fear.

We have stolen NOTHING and our only moral failing is working for greedy bastard political leaders willing to pawn their CHILDREN for a guilded toilet.

Funny how the same people who WRITE that crap about the evils of Imperialism --- never seem to be short of Programs, Plans and UN edicts for the everyday affairs of these same people. Like a father facing the decision of having his kids starve in front of him or sending his 13 yr to work in a British factory. The folks who write this crap are the SAME FOLKS who take that option from the suffering family by demanding that the factory close.

 

[Trakar]

Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...

Except that neither of these things ever occurred.