AGW - Evidence that will Convince me of the danger

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

So do me a favor and set the dimensions of the field.

good luck with that!!!
He's got more moves than a stripper on a brass pole

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

[billvon 3,132]

>Why make it a wash? Why not have it more affordable?

Because if you go for the status quo, the increased dependency on foreign oil makes oil more expensive in the long run, and the increased coal power plant pollution kills more people in the long run. Reducing both those problems while maintaining actual costs for people is a win. (And we haven't even gotten in to the costs of climate change; the above are political and health costs.)

>This interests me. Was there a state program to reinsulate old houses?

============
The Energy Upgrade California program serves as a one-stop shop for California homeowners who want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The program connects homeowners with qualified contractors, and helps homeowners find all the available incentives from their local utilities and local governments. Interested California homeowners should go to the website listed above and select an eligible contractor to get started. There are two Energy Upgrade packages a homeowner can choose from: the Basic Upgrade Package and the Advanced Upgrade Package.

Basic Upgrade Package
The Basic Upgrade Package offers up to $2,500 for certain energy improvements. A participating contractor will implement these standard improvements as needed and apply for the $1,000 rebate on behalf of the homeowner:

Air sealing
Attic insulation
Duct sealing
Hot water pipe insulation
Thermostat shut-off valve
Carbon monoxide monitor

Advanced Upgrade Package
The Advanced Upgrade Package offers greater incentives for a wider variety of energy improvements. The program begins with a home energy assessment which will identify and prioritize potential energy savings for the home. The homeowner can then select a participating contractor to make the improvements. A rebate of up to 4,500 will be awarded to the homeowner based on the predicted energy savings, with a minimum required savings of 15%.
=============

>This isn't an issue of each individual putting a lock on a door in case a burglar
>wants to drop by.

Agreed. It's more akin to requiring new construction homes and apartments to have lockable doors.

[brenthutch 444]

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



VS 9,000,000+ jobs in oil and gas.

[brenthutch 444]

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?

Are you implying that EPA regulations control the climate?

[DanG 1]

No, I'm implying EPA regulations are how our government's response to climate change are implemented, at least in part. We're talking about the cost of responding to climate change, while lawrocket and rush think will lead to economic ruin and countless deaths.

- Dan G

[kallend 2,175]

lawrocket

Okay. Incandescent bulbs are energy efficient. Because I can find things that are less efficient sources of light.

BUT you didn't specify MOST energy efficient, just "energy efficient" (Post #66, this thread). Stop weaseling.

Quote

If I wanted to move the goalposts I'd have done it. We're arguing over subjective crap. You apparently think anything that is more energy efficient than an incandescent is "energy efficient." I disagree.

So do me a favor and set the dimensions of the field.

Dimensions have been set here. Didn't do your homework, did you?



CFLs are about 5x more efficient than incandescents. LEDs are about 2x more efficient than CFLs. Using traditional sources as a benchmark both CFLs and LEDs are considered energy efficient.

And while you are correct that CFLs contain mercury, you seem conveniently to ignore the gallium, lead, arsenic and nickel content of LEDs.

Fact is, CONTRARY to your claim in Post #66, an energy efficient light bulb can be obtained far more cheaply than you claim. You were simply wrong, Counselor.

...

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

[brenthutch 444]

DanG

No, I'm implying EPA regulations are how our government's response to climate change are implemented, at least in part. We're talking about the cost of responding to climate change, while lawrocket and rush think will lead to economic ruin and countless deaths.

And apparently you seem to think that an EPA policy can control the climate.

[DanG 1]

Apparently you don't understand what the grown ups are talking about.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

DanG

Apparently you don't understand what the grown ups are talking about.

Why don't you break down for me Junebug? You dismiss the notion that climate change prevention policies have any cost, while simultaneously failing to provide any evidence of the efficacy of those policies.

[wmw999 2,600]

No, he's not denying they have any cost. I don't think anyone is. However, we're currently ignoring the cost of how we do things now (mostly because we're doing it now). Things like allergies, acid rain (which has been alleviated in part by those evil environmental regulations). We're used to them now, but what if we weren't used to them? Are they really acceptable?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,132]

>However, we're currently ignoring the cost of how we do things now (mostly
>because we're doing it now). Things like allergies, acid rain (which has been
>alleviated in part by those evil environmental regulations).

I'd also add loss of drinking water, deaths from particulate pollution, infrastructure damage from corrosive pollution, and loss of jobs from the destruction of fisheries. As one simple example, the number of deaths due to particulate pollution from US power plants was approximately 24,000 a year in 2004, but by 2010 was reduced to 13,000 a year by reducing the amount of particulate emission that plants are allowed to emit. That reduction has a cost, of course. But to say "it's too expensive" you have to say that trading 11,000 lives a year for some savings is worth it.

[brenthutch 444]

wmw999

No, he's not denying they have any cost. I don't think anyone is. However, we're currently ignoring the cost of how we do things now (mostly because we're doing it now). Things like allergies, acid rain (which has been alleviated in part by those evil environmental regulations). We're used to them now, but what if we weren't used to them? Are they really acceptable?

Wendy P.

In what way have allergies been alleviated?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Why don't you break down for me Junebug? You dismiss the notion that climate change prevention policies have any cost, while simultaneously failing to provide any evidence of the efficacy of those policies.

I'd be glad to, stud.

Of course climate change policies have a cost. What I deny is the idea that whatever cost is automatically too high.

I also have taken no specific position about the efficacy of those policies. I think many of them would be effective, especially reducing coal plant emmissions and increasing vehicle efficiency. But it's hard to show efficacy when deniers like you won't admit that any environmental policies from the past had any efficacy.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

So your position is that climate changes policies are costly, but not too costly, (what ever that means) and the only benefits are the costs themselves. " truly you have a dizzying intellect"

[billvon 3,132]

> So your position is that climate changes policies are costly, but not too costly,
>(what ever that means)

A dictionary might help you here. For example, surgery to repair a broken femur of yours might end up being $20,000, and you might consider that costly but not too costly. (At that point I suspect you would suddenly figure out what those words meant.)

>and the only benefits are the costs themselves.

Nope. That is called a strawman argument. When you can't refute the argument as presented, you make up a new argument that you think you can win.

See how that works? Now go back to supporting oil spills.

[brenthutch 444]

1. A better analogy would be:
A doctor tells a twenty year old women to get a colonoscopy for $20,000 and says "hey I'm not claiming that it will help anything, but it only costs $20,000 and you get to have a colonoscopy"

2. In what way would a dictionary help me?

3. What "argument" was I failing to refute?

4. Is not "now go back to supporting oil spills" the mother of all strawmen?

Have a nice day, drive safely.

[DanG 1]

Quote

So your position is that climate changes policies are costly, but not too costly, (what ever that means) and the only benefits are the costs themselves. " truly you have a dizzying intellect"

As usual you have completely missed the point. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but either way you clearly don't get it.

Allow me to simplify:

This thread started with lawrocket saying (paraphrased): I'll only believe climate change is real when I see some obvious signs that it is hapening, like people dying in the streets. Until then, I'll believe that any efforts to address climate change are foolish and overly costly.

I responded by saying (slightly tongue in cheek, and again paraphrased): I'll only believe that efforts to address climate change are as bad as you predict when I see some evidence, like people dying in the streets.

I asked him, and others like rushmc and now you, to explain why the first position is any more reasonable than the second. I should also note for the copmprehension impaired, that my statement is not how I really think, but rather a rhetorical tool.

I await your completely off topic response.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

I'm not even going to try to refute, " tongue in cheek" paraphrased (distorted) hyperbole, and I don't even know what a rhetorical tool is; however I can only assume that it takes one to know one.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'm not even going to try to refute, " tongue in cheek" paraphrased (distorted) hyperbole, and I don't even know what a rhetorical tool is; however I can only assume that it takes one to know one.

As expected, no reply.

You never disappoint.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

the number of deaths due to particulate pollution from US power plants was approximately 24,000 a year in 2004, but by 2010 was reduced to 13,000 a year by reducing the amount of particulate emission that plants are allowed to emit

this is the kind of alarmist bs that makes it impossible to have an adult conversation with the alarmists

These are those out of the air estimates used to scare

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

[DanG 1]

Do emissions from power plants cause any ill effects to people or the environment? If so, what estimates do you think are accurate?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Do emissions from power plants cause any ill effects to people or the environment? If so, what estimates do you think are accurate?

YOU provide the evidense showing where power plant emsions (emissions using todays standards) kill the number of people billvon like to post all the time. And I am not talking some envior group "study".

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

[rushmc 23]

BTW
Plants are required to provide the EPA with very accurate records of what is relased. The plants owned by the company I work for are ahead of current EPA requirments
I did lived down wind from two of those plants over about 10 years (within 5 miles) and I noticed nothing from them

Sutherland generationg station in Marshalltwon Iowa and Prarie Creek plant in Cedar Rapids

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

[brenthutch 444]

They can't be that bad we have one right in the middle of State College PA a town that is routinely ranked among the best places to live in the US and it can't be that we are being duped by BIG COAL; State College was ranked #2 in "100 Smartist Cities" by VentureBeat.

[lawrocket 3]

It always just turns into a shouting contest.

My wife is hotter than your wife.