0
lawrocket

AGW - Evidence that will Convince me of the danger

Recommended Posts

DanG

So your proof of the horrors of EPA regulations is, "trust me," yet you don't consider the mountains of evidence for climate change to be convincing?



Hey
Obama has been doing that for 6 years
You still trust him?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Weak attempt at a redirect. It makes no sense. What has Obama been doing?



Being truthful!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

So no substantive reply?



Not worth my time
but I will try
The epa rules as currently written will cause/force coal fired generation plant closers because they will in not be able to make any money (as Obama promised)
the generation fleet is not strong right now
start forcing plant closers and black outs will be inevitable

This also will cause less than modest electic cost increases (as Obama promised too)

All of this for carbon. A sad fucking joke
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***So no substantive reply?



Not worth my time
but I will try
The epa rules as currently written will cause/force coal fired generation plant closers because they will in not be able to make any money (as Obama promised)
the generation fleet is not strong right now
start forcing plant closers and black outs will be inevitable

This also will cause less than modest electic cost increases (as Obama promised too)

All of this for carbon. A sad fucking joke

The coal plants around here can't compete with natural gas. Simple economics. The last two closed recently and no-one has suffered a blackout.

Perhaps things are different in darkest Iowa and the 16 MILLION TONS of CO2 that your company spews each year is all absorbed by the corn.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

******So no substantive reply?



Not worth my time
but I will try
The epa rules as currently written will cause/force coal fired generation plant closers because they will in not be able to make any money (as Obama promised)
the generation fleet is not strong right now
start forcing plant closers and black outs will be inevitable

This also will cause less than modest electic cost increases (as Obama promised too)

All of this for carbon. A sad fucking joke

The coal plants around here can't compete with natural gas. Simple economics. The last two closed recently and no-one has suffered a blackout.

Perhaps things are different in darkest Iowa and the 16 MILLION TONS of CO2 that your company spews each year is all absorbed by the corn.

and many of the plants my company have, HAVE been or are being converted

FOR THE RIGHT FUCKING REASONS!!!!!!! Economics

The crap spewed to kill coal is bs
Some plants can not be converted for various reason
It takes about 5 to eight years to permit and build a new gas plant

CO2 is not a polutant
Regardless of how many times you tell yourself otherwise
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean besides every storm, flood, drought or windy day being blamed on it? Why are we supposed to cut carbon use? Because doing so would prevent disaster, right? Or ill effect.

Why cut carbon? It's to avoid bad consequences, eh?

Is this a matter of a giving chemo to a 30 year old woman with stage 3 cervical cancer? Or giving chemo to an 85 year old man with stage 1 prostate cancer?

I'll tell you this, though. To deny that there have been pretty disastrous predictions about the horrors of AGW is denialism at its finest. And right from the top. Michael Mann himself set 2036 as the date when bad stuff is irreversible.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

"Let us hope that a lower climate sensitivity of 2.5 degrees C turns out to be correct. If so, it offers cautious optimism. It provides encouragement that we can avert irreparable harm to our planet. That is, if—and only if—we accept the urgency "

This is what I'm talking about.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The crap spewed to kill coal is bs
Some plants can not be converted for various reason



Then they will be shut down and replaced with modern plants. It's happening as we speak.

Quote

It takes about 5 to eight years to permit and build a new gas plant


Sounds about right. So those ancient, dirty coal plants will be shut down within 10 years and replaced by modern, efficient sources of energy.

Quote

CO2 is not a polutant


Sorry, the current (conservative) supreme court disagrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you're replying to. It would help if you could use the reply function.

I wasn't asking you for examples of people who the "climate change alarmists" say will be hurt by climate change. I asked for examples of people who have been hurt by the government response to climate change.

Essentially I'm accusing you of being an "alarmist" for the detrimental effects of government response. Just like you'll only believe in climate change if you're shown evidence, I'll only be convinced that the response is as bad as you say when you can show me evidence.

Is that more clear?

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Is this a matter of a giving chemo to a 30 year old woman with stage 3 cervical
>cancer? Or giving chemo to an 85 year old man with stage 1 prostate cancer?

More a matter of not giving them cancer to begin with. In general, it is far easier to prevent a disease from beginning than to treat it after you see how bad it's going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply] I asked for examples of people who have been hurt by the government response to climate change.



Okay. The poor in Germany. Can't afford an extra couple of hundred Euro per year for their power bills. Have to either lose power or cut spending on other things.

How about losses to coal industry. Like it or not, those people suffer when their industries and livelihoods are lost. Perhaps there can be a new type of Rust Belt, only this one based on the ruins of the coal or oil industries.

I can fully see an American Energiewende. Just like in Germany, where big corporations who use the most power most inefficiently get exempted (understandably - even Merkel knew that it'd destroy exports and German employment and economy if it didn't make exeptions, so she had to limit the damage she knew it would cause) and put the cost on the consumers, but mainly screwing over the poor.

Ever had power go out? When people cannot afford power (especially in cities) people die. That 1995 heat wave in Chicago? Yeah - it didn't kill wealthy or middle class. It killed the poor. The elderly. Those who couldn't afford to cool down.

Who freezes to death in a developed nation? The poor. Those who struggle to afford energy.

[Reply]Essentially I'm accusing you of being an "alarmist" for the detrimental effects of government response.



Good. Show me people killed by climate change. I can assure you that there is suffering whenever a layoff occurs. Do you think that some west Virginia coal mining family cheered when the coal mine was idled? 150 or 200 coal mines (mainly in Appalachia) have been idled while 15k megawatts of coal generation has been shuttered.

Those have costs. They have harm associated. Now - what benefits have been obtained? What harm has been averted as a result?

I'll put it this way: even shutting down an illegal pot grow in the forest brings harm to some people. Even selling tax-free looseys on the street causes harm to someone. Whether it's worth choking the guy out and killing him to stop him is appropriate to stop the harm from happening.

[Reply]Just like you'll only believe in climate change if you're shown evidence, I'll only be convinced that the response is as bad as you say when you can show me evidence.



That's fine. Some people say, "Fuck the poor" and don't give a shit about making housing, fuel, electricity, food, etc, affordable. It's like the millions who could have actually not gotten malaria had DDT not been banned.

There is harm. There is harm from a rise in global temperature. There is harm from trying to mitigate or prevent it. My idea of harm may differ from yours.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Ever had power go out? When people cannot afford power (especially in cities)
>people die. That 1995 heat wave in Chicago? Yeah - it didn't kill wealthy or middle
>class. It killed the poor. The elderly. Those who couldn't afford to cool down.

So you are claiming that before climate change was a big issue, no one (or even fewer people) died from freezing or overheating? That's going to be a very hard claim to substantiate.

In fact I would claim the opposite. With the push for better insulation and more efficient furnaces in houses, fewer people freeze to death because it's just plain cheaper to heat your house. With Energy Star requirements for air conditioners, fewer people die in heat waves because they can cool their homes more reliably and with less money.

My mother's family grew up in an apartment in Queens. No air conditioning at all, and no electric lights at first. O the horror of someone living in a modern apartment who might have to endure the pains using a cheap window air conditioner.

> I can assure you that there is suffering
>whenever a layoff occurs. Do you think that some west Virginia coal mining family
>cheered when the coal mine was idled? 150 or 200 coal mines (mainly in
>Appalachia) have been idled while 15k megawatts of coal generation has been
>shuttered.

Yes, there is always some pain when change happened. Cars drove stables out of business. Electricity drove lamplighters out of business. Sound in movies drove organists out of business.

Fortunately the US wind power is now employing 75K people, so the jobs still exist - they are just a different form.

>Some people say, "Fuck the poor" and don't give a shit about making housing,
>fuel, electricity, food, etc, affordable.

Yep. And others say "fuck the US" and don't give a shit about how many people coal power kills. As long at it's someone else.

Still others say "fuck the future" and could really care less about the future effects of their current actions - as long as they can warm up their hot tub in an hour and watch that big screen TV. That's all that's important to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon


So you are claiming that before climate change was a big issue, no one (or even fewer people) died from freezing or overheating? That's going to be a very hard claim to substantiate.



Not even close. I'm saying that it happened a lot more often before cheap and reliable energy as available. Make energy more expensive (or less reliable) and more people will die from weather events.

[Quote]With the push for better insulation and more efficient furnaces in houses, fewer people freeze to death because it's just plain cheaper to heat your house. With Energy Star requirements for air conditioners, fewer people die in heat waves because they can cool their homes more reliably and with less money.

Except for the poor, who have a hard time swinging ten bucks for an energy efficient light bulb. That's one thing about the poor - they can't afford to reinsulate or renovate or swing $20k for a solar system or $5k for new efficient appliances. Many beat the heat with fans. Some have a box a/c in the window.

[Reply]My mother's family grew up in an apartment in Queens. No air conditioning at all, and no electric lights at first. O the horror of someone living in a modern apartment who might have to endure the pains using a cheap window air conditioner.



Oh, the horror of someone who might have to drop an extra $50 a month to use that a/c. I remember wearing a wet tee shirt when it got hot. The poor can do it too, right? Fuck em. They can't afford an extra $50 a month then screw them!

[Reply]Yes, there is always some pain when change happened.



Thank you. You get it.

[Reply]Cars drove stables out of business. Electricity drove lamplighters out of business. Sound in movies drove organists out of business.



And child labor laws meant less money for families, but it also meant more kids living to the teenage years. And kerosene saved more whales than Greenpeace but put whalers out of business.

[Reply]Fortunately the US wind power is now employing 75K people, so the jobs still exist - they are just a different form.



That benefits apply to some does not relieve the costs to others. You could give your kidneys up to two people and dramatically improve their lives. Doesn't mean your life wouldn't suck afterward.

[Reply]Yep. And others say "fuck the US" and don't give a shit about how many people coal power kills. As long at it's someone else.



Indeed. We tend to screw over those who have less power while shoring up the power of those who already have it. See "Stock Market since 2008 v. Employment"

[Quote]Still others say "fuck the future" and could really care less about the future effects of their current actions - as long as they can warm up their hot tub in an hour and watch that big screen TV. That's all that's important to them.

True.

Meanwhile I have something that started this off: let's see how bad this will be. Not with post hoc attribution but with some actual observations (any marginally proficient climate guy could run a computer model projecting all those things) that are in line with what I think will be bad enough to force major societal changes.

It leads to the question: "Is it worth sending someone to prison for using a black market hot tub while watching the Blackhawks on a big screen?" Because, as you know, that's what will be necessary to curb the practice.


My wife is hotter than your wife.