Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[orogenicman]

Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages.

You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. Why? Because agriculture didn't exist during the ice age. And it wasn't because we tried and failed. What is undeniable is that most of the Sahara desert was green while much of Europe was buried in ice.

Yes we do. Read the Domesday book sometime. It was a tax record so had to be very accurate. England produced as much wine as France did. Something it STILL can't do today. The Romans also reported favorably of their warm period as did the Chinese. You need to read some history there boy. You limit yourself to your highly biased writings and there's a whole world out there you know nothing about.

Below is one of MANY sources.....

"10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than in the period preceding and the period following it. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is slightly warmer than for most of the 20th century. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art."


Middle Ages - Environmental history timeline

You are confused, dude. The last ice age ended 11,800 years ago.

 

[orogenicman]

You don't know that, and neither does anyone else.

Really? I'm pretty sure I read something about a wine industry in England and spreading Viking settlements during warm periods and famine during cold periods.

Yeah, and there were probably 10,000 people in all of the British Isles at the time. What a thriving industry that was.

Wow, you are truly ignorant of history.

"At the time of the Domesday Book (1086) England probably had a population of about 2 million. (Much less than in Roman times). However the population grew rapidly. It may have reached about 5 or 6 million by the end of the 13th century."

A History of the Population of England

The Domesday Book Online - Home

Wow, you are STILL confused, dude. The last ice age still ended 11,800 years ago.

 

[gslack]

You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. Why? Because agriculture didn't exist during the ice age. And it wasn't because we tried and failed. What is undeniable is that most of the Sahara desert was green while much of Europe was buried in ice.

Yes we do. Read the Domesday book sometime. It was a tax record so had to be very accurate. England produced as much wine as France did. Something it STILL can't do today. The Romans also reported favorably of their warm period as did the Chinese. You need to read some history there boy. You limit yourself to your highly biased writings and there's a whole world out there you know nothing about.

Below is one of MANY sources.....

"10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than in the period preceding and the period following it. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is slightly warmer than for most of the 20th century. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art."


Middle Ages - Environmental history timeline

You are confused, dude. The last ice age ended 11,800 years ago.

Some people, just can't help lying... Sad really...

So tell me climate scientist..Where did you get he he said ice age? The part you highlighted didn't say anything about ice age....

So where did ya get it? Did bigfoot tell you?

ifitspmz in drag again....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Brother Warmers, pay the Deniers no heed! We have Consensus! Science is settled

 

[Abraham3]

Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

What real environmental protection would that be? Where would you like to spend money?

I'm glad you ask that. Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..

I'd have the GOVT clean up it's act. It is the nations largest and most dangerous polluter. Including it's antiquated generators in the Tenn Valley Auth. and military base dumps.

From the leaking nuclear weapons waste at Hanford and Savannah river to fulfilling the promise of completing Yucca Mtn as a waste depository.

I'd figure out how to remove 100s of sq. miles of floating waste in the oceans and do better and more efficient mitigation for ocean oil spills thru engineering.

I'd cut the subsidies going to billionaires to make trophy cars for millionaires and do BASIC SCIENCE on hydrogen production and fuel cells.

Plan for a recycling infrastructure for the mountain of battery waste from the ill-conceived push for plug-in EVs.

I'd push market oriented incentives for private landowners to make provisions for nature on their lands and IMPROVE the stewardship of PUBLIC lands at the BLM and Forest Service. Consolidate STRATEGIC public lands and PLAN for habitat zones that make sense.

I'd be honest about the fallacy of using wind and solar ON GRID and instead propose meaningful work for renewables OFF GRID doing desalinization and hydrogen production.

End the subsidies for ethanol, wind, solar, and any fossil fuel as a commodity and funding or subsidies limited to only EXPLORATION and RESEARCH.

I'd figure out exactly WHY the bees are dying and how to bolster fisheries with more market oriented practices..

Plenty of stuff to work on isn't there? No reason why we got to spend all our time arguing over AGW when no one wants to fix it tomorrow by unleashing 2 decades of new nuclear plant design..

That is a lovely laundry list you've got there and I fully agree with you that most of those are deserving of our full attention. I do not agree with you, however, if you are contending that these items are not being addressed due to time or money being spent to combat GHG emissions. Besides which, reducing GHG emissions is a major part of "true environmentalism".

I reject your contention that the government is the largest and most dangerous polluter. The largest source of air pollution in this country is the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation. The largest source of water pollution is farming runoff. Neither of these are activities in which the government participates to any significant degree. Neither is the government a large producer of non-biodegradable waste material (polystyrene, polyethylene, PCBs, etc). Military bases have been localized sources of waste and hazardous waste in the past but for the past decade and a half have been the subject of a intense and strenuously enforced program to minimize the production of such waste and to properly dispose of what is generated.

If it were at the sole discretion of the federal governnment, the nuclear waste facility at Yucca Flats would have been operational many years back. It has been the opposition of the NIMBY locals that have halted the project. Now whether or not Yucca Flats, as envisioned, was a truly safe location and design at which to dispose of our nuclear waste material is another question. It is also a bit of a red herring for while the various generators are not happy building and maintaining their local storage facilities, the nation's nuke plants have the capacity in those local facilities for decades more.

Hanford and Savannah are both environmental disasters. However, their cleanup is not currently hampered by lack of funding.

Governments at all levels, at home and abroad, are working to eliminate the sources of all that plastic floating around in the ocean. Unfortunately, plastic packaging has become completely ubiquitous and will not be eliminated overnight. And replacing it with paper may not be the best idea in the long run. Biodegradable plastics may be the best solution but so far they're higher cost has prevented their widespread adoption.

You want to eliminate subsidies for the development of non-polluting automobiles yet ICE-powered automobiles are one of the largest polluters on the planet. It's not just CO2 coming out of those exhaust pipes. You cannot take the first step towards cleaning up this nation's air until you address the problem of automobile exhausts. CAFE and emissions standards for automobiles have already produced enormous benefit but there is room for a great deal more. The complete elimination of hydrocarbon exhaust compounds is a worthy goal.

Every one of the world's great economies pay more - a great deal more - for each liter of gasoline they consume. The price at the pump needs to actually reflect the cost to society of acquiring and burning the stuff. It is toxic on many levels and no matter what amazing new discoveries are made, its supply is finite.

Obviously we disagree on whether or not the current push for EV is "ill-conceived". I will admit that, at present, recycling LIPo batteries is a difficult and expensive process with a relatively small profit potential when those batteries no longer contain cobalt. However, there are currently a very small number of EV vehicles on the road and most are quite new. The supply of failed, automotive lithium batteries is minute. There is absolutely no economy of scale. And the mechanical processes involved in recycling lithium batteries from cameras and other small electronics is completely different from what is used to process batteries from EV automobiles.

However, I expect the 'Lithium Era' to be rather short-lived. Several major manufacturers plan to have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the market in 2-5 years. As you know, the holdup is hydrogen supply. The advantages hydrogen fuel cells have over batteries is significant and once such vehicles are available I expect far more infrastructure progress than we've seen with EV charging stations. A hydrogen-powered car can be refilled in a few minutes if not seconds. Spending two - three hours at a gas station while my car batteries charge has never been a picture I (or anyone else) saw as truly feasible. For one thing, the number of charging stations required to support a given population of EVs is dependent on the charging time. The results are nearly unworkable unless the cars are used almost solely for local transportation and can be charged at home. Hybrids are a stepping stone to EVs and EVs are a stepping stone to fuel cells.

Solar and wind power are well suited for hydrogen production and the like but they aren't completely incompatible with grid use. The zero fuel cost has some remarkable powers when calculating efficiency.

I don't see anything you've listed here as being unduly limited by a competition with GHG reduction for capital resources. The only purpose of many items on your list is to stop the effort to curtail GHG emissions. That's not quite what you claimed it would be.

 

[Abraham3]

And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.

Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen. As you can see above, I did reply. FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.

 

[Saigon]

Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..

Actually, the opposite has occured.

Most of the measures designed to curb emissions also benefit the environment in other ways.

Doing away with coal, making more efficient engines and improving industrial and engine efficiency are having a huge impact on air quality, aren't they?

We are making huge savings on heating and electricity bills as people and companies work more with insulation, timer switches on lights, better light bulbs....a thousand minor changes that benefit everyone.

I totally agree that we need to save the rainforest (and I've seen this destruction first hand in the Amazon) but climate change contributes to doing so by raising awareness and by promoting better environmental practices.

You can complain about leaking nuclear plants, but climate change is inspiring technologies like Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal that provide the next generation of electricity supply.

Even recycling goes hand-in-hand with reducing emissions, not counter to it.

I really have no idea what you are complaining about here - even if we found out tomorrow that climate change was not linked to CO2, all of the changes and developments made would be worth it, I would think.

 

[orogenicman]

Well said, Abe.

 

[Abraham3]

Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

What real environmental protection would that be? Where would you like to spend money?

Clean up all the toxic waste dumps that are out there. Restore the orphan holes that dot the Earth. Prevent rainforest destruction. Save the whales. Develop a asteroid protection system. Develop a viable alternative energy system.

That will do for now....

Putting money into the Superfund trust fund has been far more hampered by elected Republicans failing to fund it and failing to go after the industrial polluters themselves than it has been affected by any shortage of funds due to GHG efforts. Saving the environment, oddly enough, has never been a high priority among CONSERVATIVES. Go figger.

There are, to my knowledge, no rainforests of note under environmental threat in the US. I am sure there are areas in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that are under threat from developers. But if you want to use federal funds to buy up the land and take it off the market, you're going to have complaints from locals that you're preventing economic growth and expanded employment opportunities. The truly threatened rainforest is found in equatorial regions such as the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia. There, of course, we have little influence save some method to curtail US consumption. This is not something you could fix if only somehow we could stop funding the war on CO2.

Save the Whales. I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, there's not much else the US can do than what it has already done. If you'd like to declare war on Japan, Iceland, Norway and the Inuit Nation, I'll give you a raised fist, but the whole problem has been boiled down to one of cultural reeducation. Money is not the issue.

Asteroid protection system. Uh-huh. We could move current funding up a order of magnitude without impacting the budget for mosquito control. There is no conflict between this and GHG emission reduction.

"Develop a viable alternative energy system". I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The US already spends a considerable amount of money on this topic and unless you're leaving a few crucial points unspoken, I think this is part and parcel of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions. What do you actually mean with this point? Where would you spend money and how would it differ from efforts to develop clean coal, wind, solar, fission, fusion, hydroelectric, OTEC, geothermal, space-based or any of the dozens of other technologies in R&D?

Finally, I haven't the faintest idea what an "orphan hole" might be and neither does Dictionary.com, Wikipedia or three different search engines.

 

[gslack]

Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

What real environmental protection would that be? Where would you like to spend money?

I'm glad you ask that. Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..

I'd have the GOVT clean up it's act. It is the nations largest and most dangerous polluter. Including it's antiquated generators in the Tenn Valley Auth. and military base dumps.

From the leaking nuclear weapons waste at Hanford and Savannah river to fulfilling the promise of completing Yucca Mtn as a waste depository.

I'd figure out how to remove 100s of sq. miles of floating waste in the oceans and do better and more efficient mitigation for ocean oil spills thru engineering.

I'd cut the subsidies going to billionaires to make trophy cars for millionaires and do BASIC SCIENCE on hydrogen production and fuel cells.

Plan for a recycling infrastructure for the mountain of battery waste from the ill-conceived push for plug-in EVs.

I'd push market oriented incentives for private landowners to make provisions for nature on their lands and IMPROVE the stewardship of PUBLIC lands at the BLM and Forest Service. Consolidate STRATEGIC public lands and PLAN for habitat zones that make sense.

I'd be honest about the fallacy of using wind and solar ON GRID and instead propose meaningful work for renewables OFF GRID doing desalinization and hydrogen production.

End the subsidies for ethanol, wind, solar, and any fossil fuel as a commodity and funding or subsidies limited to only EXPLORATION and RESEARCH.

I'd figure out exactly WHY the bees are dying and how to bolster fisheries with more market oriented practices..

Plenty of stuff to work on isn't there? No reason why we got to spend all our time arguing over AGW when no one wants to fix it tomorrow by unleashing 2 decades of new nuclear plant design..

That is a lovely laundry list you've got there and I fully agree with you that most of those are deserving of our full attention. I do not agree with you, however, if you are contending that these items are not being addressed due to time or money being spent to combat GHG emissions. Besides which, reducing GHG emissions is a major part of "true environmentalism".

I reject your contention that the government is the largest and most dangerous polluter. The largest source of air pollution in this country is the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation. The largest source of water pollution is farming runoff. Neither of these are activities in which the government participates to any significant degree. Neither is the government a large producer of non-biodegradable waste material (polystyrene, polyethylene, PCBs, etc). Military bases have been localized sources of waste and hazardous waste in the past but for the past decade and a half have been the subject of a intense and strenuously enforced program to minimize the production of such waste and to properly dispose of what is generated.

If it were at the sole discretion of the federal governnment, the nuclear waste facility at Yucca Flats would have been operational many years back. It has been the opposition of the NIMBY locals that have halted the project. Now whether or not Yucca Flats, as envisioned, was a truly safe location and design at which to dispose of our nuclear waste material is another question. It is also a bit of a red herring for while the various generators are not happy building and maintaining their local storage facilities, the nation's nuke plants have the capacity in those local facilities for decades more.

Hanford and Savannah are both environmental disasters. However, their cleanup is not currently hampered by lack of funding.

Governments at all levels, at home and abroad, are working to eliminate the sources of all that plastic floating around in the ocean. Unfortunately, plastic packaging has become completely ubiquitous and will not be eliminated overnight. And replacing it with paper may not be the best idea in the long run. Biodegradable plastics may be the best solution but so far they're higher cost has prevented their widespread adoption.

You want to eliminate subsidies for the development of non-polluting automobiles yet ICE-powered automobiles are one of the largest polluters on the planet. It's not just CO2 coming out of those exhaust pipes. You cannot take the first step towards cleaning up this nation's air until you address the problem of automobile exhausts. CAFE and emissions standards for automobiles have already produced enormous benefit but there is room for a great deal more. The complete elimination of hydrocarbon exhaust compounds is a worthy goal.

Every one of the world's great economies pay more - a great deal more - for each liter of gasoline they consume. The price at the pump needs to actually reflect the cost to society of acquiring and burning the stuff. It is toxic on many levels and no matter what amazing new discoveries are made, its supply is finite.

Obviously we disagree on whether or not the current push for EV is "ill-conceived". I will admit that, at present, recycling LIPo batteries is a difficult and expensive process with a relatively small profit potential when those batteries no longer contain cobalt. However, there are currently a very small number of EV vehicles on the road and most are quite new. The supply of failed, automotive lithium batteries is minute. There is absolutely no economy of scale. And the mechanical processes involved in recycling lithium batteries from cameras and other small electronics is completely different from what is used to process batteries from EV automobiles.

However, I expect the 'Lithium Era' to be rather short-lived. Several major manufacturers plan to have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the market in 2-5 years. As you know, the holdup is hydrogen supply. The advantages hydrogen fuel cells have over batteries is significant and once such vehicles are available I expect far more infrastructure progress than we've seen with EV charging stations. A hydrogen-powered car can be refilled in a few minutes if not seconds. Spending two - three hours at a gas station while my car batteries charge has never been a picture I (or anyone else) saw as truly feasible. For one thing, the number of charging stations required to support a given population of EVs is dependent on the charging time. The results are nearly unworkable unless the cars are used almost solely for local transportation and can be charged at home. Hybrids are a stepping stone to EVs and EVs are a stepping stone to fuel cells.

Solar and wind power are well suited for hydrogen production and the like but they aren't completely incompatible with grid use. The zero fuel cost has some remarkable powers when calculating efficiency.

I don't see anything you've listed here as being unduly limited by a competition with GHG reduction for capital resources. The only purpose of many items on your list is to stop the effort to curtail GHG emissions. That's not quite what you claimed it would be.

A fine example lefty mentality..

You people crack me up.. You want tosave everyone from everything no matter what. Except when ever you guys cry enough to get what you want and save who or whatever it is you must save this week, another problem pops up, often caused by the steps you cried for last week for the other problem you had to save the world from..

But what do you care? none of you actually pay for any of it. You don't build the businesses, the infrastructure, create the jobs, or do anything that makes any of it actually happen. All you do is *****, and complain until somebody else does something, and then when or if they do, you call them greedy and evil..

You all thought paying auto-workers $40 and hour was a good idea because everybody deserves that much. Now you wonder why all the better paying jobs are farmed out to 3rd world countries.. An honest wage for an honest days work has been replaced with entitlement mentality.. Instead of basing your salary expectations on the job, your training,education and experience, you base it on how much money the company makes..

Now we have debt we can never pay off, and you people are extatic because you think you will get free health care.. it's not free dumbass, the rest of us pay for it.. The value of the dollar continues to fall, and the answer form you guys is toraise the minimum wage.. WTF? Youare bleeding from an artery in your leg, and you have a scratch on your nose, you people would worry of the nose because that's what people will see first... Morons..

Half-assed savior wannabes with grasp of reality. You want cheap, abundant fuel, but you don't do anything to create or get it. You just demand others do it somehow...

IMHO, so long as people with no real contribution to society other than their mouths and votes, are hand-held, coddled, and told how special they are despite the fact if they really were so special, they would get off their asses and contribute,society will suffer..

And while I'm up here, somebody fix the auto-correct feature on this tablet... Probably made by a lefty...

 

[PMZ]

If trying to keep the lights on in an advanced society is a crime.. Then sign me up dude. We are wasting too much money on windmills and other fantasies. Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

If posting strawman arguments is your idea of a scientific debate, you've got more serious problems than you are letting on.

Holy Crap man... That's the nuts of the argument here. In another post, you say that Repubs have no solutions.. Well I told you that you're solutions are whispered by Unicorns.
YOU --- have no solutions..

I'll give you a solution.. Do a pilot demo of the top 3 selected NEW nuclear designs. Put them in some unused BLM sandlot.. Build and test the shit out of them in just 3 years. And then CERTIFY them to be replicated WITHOUT undo regulatory delays or costs..

Build or start 200 new nuclear plants by 2018. Then quit bitching about who's doing what. Strawman my ass. All you got is posturing and green delusions.

Whatchagot to keep the lights on and solve (the imagined) AGW crisis??

''Whatchagot to keep the lights on and solve (the imagined) AGW crisis?''

I must live in a different part of the country than you do. My lights never went out. In fact we're working on keeping the lights on through much higher demand and the end of fossil fuels. That's called planning ahead, a concept foreign to republicans.

Also, in my country, energy is supplied by private enterprise. They are investing in all kinds of sustainable supplies, including nuclear, not in methods that have limited lives. Look up Terrapower. So what you wish was true is not only contrary to science but business also. And politics. You're a three time loser.

 

[Abraham3]

What is being offered is a schizoid plan to simultaneously push electric conservation and at the SAME TIME talk about encouraging a 30% increase in Grid capacity by pushing EVs. Makes no sense. I'm pulling 1W chargers out of the wall while my neighbor is using a day's worth of juice to fill his Leaf.. Wind and Solar don't ADD capacity. They are supplements that must come second to PRIMARY generators capable of 24/7/365 generation.

The lights go out when the country realizes that the cost and furor over a major grid overhaul and generation increase is out of reach given our finances..

Your side wants electricity to be RARE and EXPENSIVE (that's the end result of "conservation")

And many of us believe that electricity should be CHEAP AND PLENTIFUL.
Cheap and plentiful rubs leftists the wrong way since they see society as a blight on the planet anyway.

Our nuclear plants are approaching 60 yrs old.. There's more computing power in a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll than a US nuclear plant. THAT'S why we need to expedite verification of latest BEST technologies and allow them to be replicated without delay.

So what you are saying is that we should spend billions of dollars installing "Windows" in our nuclear plants. OMG! Perhaps you haven't thought that through.

Let me worry about how to keep MicroSoft the hell out of the nuclear zone...

I'm actually working right now to update components for some of those old plants. We really don't want to keep patching them forever... One display that I just redesigned TRIPLED the processing power of that plant because I included a $1.50 microprocessor.

THere is so much exciting new nuclear tech out there. And we have not had the balls to let it thrive.

There is nothing "schizoid" about urging energy conservation and simultaneously working to boost grid capacity to support EV usage. The goal of both efforts is to burn less fossil fuels, even if those EVs are, for the most part, charged with energy created by burning fossil fuels. The efficiency of a large power plant is grossly better than the best ICE powered automobile. And as more and more alternative energy sources (and nuke plants) come online, the situation will only get better.

Those who believe AGW to be a real threat (that would be virtually every man, woman and child on the planet sporting a science education) do not want electrical energy to be rare. We would like to see its price reflect its actual cost. No one is served in the long run by government pushing the price down through taxpayer-funded subsidization and price controls. At some point, the actual bill will have to be paid. We think that actively moving towards alternative energy sources represents a wise investment. The infrastructure has to change. The sooner we get started on it, the less it will cost and the less destructive impact the needed changes will have.

I have always been an advocate of nuclear power. This nation has been a little short on testosterone on the topic for quite some time. It looked like things were going to turn around and then we all got our lesson on tsunamis and why nuke plants shouldn't be built on coastlines in geologically unstable areas. Hopefully, we can get past this sticking point. There are few alternative sources with the promise of nuclear power wrt reducing our GHG (and CO and sulfate and particulate) emissions.

 

[Saigon]

It does seem wonderfully ironic that in all Flac's hysteria, he has not noticed that the countries that have made the greatest advances in producing massive amounts of electricity from renewables are those countries most committed to combating climate change.

It is the Luddite USA that is left in the dust with with Tidal, with Osmotic, with Solar Thermal and even with Breeder Reactors.

The US is so fixated on fracking that they are a good 10 years behind Germany, Korea, Spain and the UK when it comes to real 21st century solutions.

 

[PMZ]

Part of engineering is knowing when science has reached an optimal position on a learning curve where the value of increased knowledge is marginal compared to the value of moving ahead.

Early pioneers suffer the most casualties. Late adapters never catch up.

It will be interesting over time to see if the doers in America have hit the sweet spot, or if the political Luddites here have prevented that.

 

[IanC]

And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.

Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen. As you can see above, I did reply. FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.

You don't like the way I phrased it? Too bad, I had been playing a rather violent video game with my son and it seemed like an apt description at the time.

Perhaps I should have called it a "You,sir, are no Jack Kennedy" moment.

Flac is an educated and informed person with reasoned and we'll thought out positions on many subjects. Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

Somehow I suspect you do not include fracking in that list of 'sophmoric' sciences.

If you care to explain why fracking is a safer, cleaner alternative than tidal, breeder reactors or solar thermal, I'd love to hear it. Flac couldn't.

 

[PMZ]

And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.

Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen. As you can see above, I did reply. FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.

You don't like the way I phrased it? Too bad, I had been playing a rather violent video game with my son and it seemed like an apt description at the time.

Perhaps I should have called it a "You,sir, are no Jack Kennedy" moment.

Flac is an educated and informed person with reasoned and we'll thought out positions on many subjects. Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

Anybody who believes himself to be above science probably assumes the same relative to business and politics too.

I see it as an entitlement attitude.

People who take that position are merely Dunning-Kruger graduates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen. As you can see above, I did reply. FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.

You don't like the way I phrased it? Too bad, I had been playing a rather violent video game with my son and it seemed like an apt description at the time.

Perhaps I should have called it a "You,sir, are no Jack Kennedy" moment.

Flac is an educated and informed person with reasoned and we'll thought out positions on many subjects. Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

Anybody who believes himself to be above science probably assumes the same relative to business and politics too.

I see it as an entitlement attitude.

People who take that position are merely Dunning-Kruger graduates.

But enough about Al Gore.

 

[PMZ]

You don't like the way I phrased it? Too bad, I had been playing a rather violent video game with my son and it seemed like an apt description at the time.

Perhaps I should have called it a "You,sir, are no Jack Kennedy" moment.

Flac is an educated and informed person with reasoned and we'll thought out positions on many subjects. Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

Anybody who believes himself to be above science probably assumes the same relative to business and politics too.

I see it as an entitlement attitude.

People who take that position are merely Dunning-Kruger graduates.

But enough about Al Gore.

Al Gore only claimed to be a politician. But, that puts him way ahead of you. Is there anything that you can claim?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anybody who believes himself to be above science probably assumes the same relative to business and politics too.

I see it as an entitlement attitude.

People who take that position are merely Dunning-Kruger graduates.

But enough about Al Gore.

Al Gore only claimed to be a politician. But, that puts him way ahead of you. Is there anything that you can claim?

I haven't made 10s of millions spreading bad science, unlike Gore.