6 ms·

I've never been fully convinced of anthropomorphic climate change. There's just too much politics involved for me to be convinced of such relatively recent stud

I've never been fully convinced of anthropomorphic climate change. There's just too much politics involved for me to be convinced of such relatively recent studies. That said, I'll convert all of my energy sources to PV cells tomorrow if someone gives me a way to do it without mortgaging the next ten years of my life.

KevinEldon 12y ago
A colleague of mine in Sacramento has installed solar power and expects to recover the investment in 6 years. If you're serious about using solar it seems like something that's achievable without mortgaging your life.
- strictnein 12y ago
  California has the highest (I believe) state subsidies for this sort of thing. My aunt and uncle just did the same thing, and they live north of LA. It makes me wonder two things: 1. What is the ROI without the subsidies? 2. How much lower would the price be if the subsidies didn't exist?
  - ams6110 12y ago
    Subsidies don't recover the investment, they just make other people pay for it.
    - primroot 12y ago
      ... or potentially pay for their own negative externalities.
      - ptaipale 12y ago
        Other people pay, regardless of whether they produce negative externalities or not.
sgt101 12y ago
Rather than looking at the politics perhaps you could look at the science? What would it take to convince you? Seriously - if nothing can then we have departed from rational debate, but if there is evidence that would sway you then it would be great to identify it.
- padobson 12y ago
  I have a number of questions that I've never been able to find satisfactory answers to, and if I got them I could be convinced. But first, let me say, that this may well be moot. I think solar energy is the way to go. I think the sooner human beings stop burning things they find in the ground for energy, the better. I'll happily give my vote or my money to an elegant solution to make this happen. Next, my nutshell understanding of global warming: Temperature and carbon-based greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are closely correlated. For as far back as we can measure (many millennia when using ice cores), atmospheric temperate has been stable along with CO2 concentrations (about 280ppm). Sometime in mid 18th century, CO2 concentrations started to uptick, which caused a rise in temperatures, which in turn caused a rise in CO2 concentrations, compounding continuously to present day levels (1.5 degree temperature increase, ~400 ppm CO2 concentrations). The best explanation for the shift in the balance of the carbon cycle is the additional gases that humans add by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and making concrete. My questions: 1. Every carbon-temperature hockey stick chart I've seen starts in 1750, when humans were a negligible atmospheric carbon source. Even today, human beings are a minor source of carbon-based gases in the fast carbon cycle. While I can certainly accept that it would only take a minor addition to throw the whole system out of balance, the timing seems strange to me. How do we know that humans are responsible for the initial rise in CO2 concentrations above 280ppm that started 250 years ago when emissions paled in comparison to what they are today? 2. I've seen lots of charts that correlate greenhouse gas concentrations with temperature, but the charts I've seen (like this one: http://bit.ly/18UFLMA http://bit.ly/18UFLMA) that correlate greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions don't seem to correlate as strongly until the blade of the hockey stick, and even then the correlation usually flips, with the proportion of human emissions surpassing the proportion of CO2 concentrations. If humans are directly responsible for present day greenhouse gas concentrations, shouldn't emissions and CO2 concentrations more closely correlate? It seems like greenhouse gas concentrations don't meaningfully rise until temperature meaningfully rises first as a result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations. 3. Water vapor is a much more abundant greenhouse gas than any gases emitted by human activity. While I understand that other greenhouse gases simply have a higher capacity for trapping heat, what I don't understand is how significantly humans could impact the greenhouse effect when they don't substantially alter the most quantitatively significant greenhouse gas. 4. The most convincing argument for anthropomorphic climate change, to me, is the lack of a viable alternative. Solar forcing seems to be the best alternative offered. Do the climate models used to support anthropomorphic climate change account for variability in solar output? Is there variability in solar output? How is this measured?
DanBC 12y ago
> There's just too much politics involved When tobacco was under attack the companies paid for scientists and doctors to spread misleading information; they paid for FUD. Those same scientists are now employed by oil and energy companies and they are using the same tactics. The only reason there's "politics" involved is because one side is deliberately spreading lies about the entirety of the science, even the bits that we are sure about.
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  The only reason? Don't you think it is a possibility that this is all an attempt to artificially raise costs? With increased efficiency of production, one might expect the cost of energy to decrease, but unfortunately we will need to raise them because 'climate change'. Looks like you will need to keep working your 9-5 in order to fund your way of life. Someone (not me) might say this looks like business as usual.
- strictnein 12y ago
  This is nothing like tobacco and the amount of money spent on research to support AGW absolutely dwarfs the amount of money that the energy companies spends. Here's a simple question: for the ground based sensors used in a significant portion of land based temperature readings, what happens if you just simply forgot to mow the grass for a couple of weeks. Or, in general, just don't mow it short enough? Answer: you'll get readings 2-5F too high, especially at night. The biggest issue is that the land based sensor data we rely on is kind of junk and is constantly being tweaked and changed, and the satellite based data is only marginally better.
- Agustus 12y ago
  Even in the smoking realm there was politics. Because there are no adults in a room to make judgement calls anymore, you need to place your claim on zero or nothing. The smoking industry could not admit there might be the slightest possibility of a link, otherwise they would have a BPA-plastic situation on their hands; the public goes into hysteria over a possible link. The lie had to be maintained in order to preserve the company. The government lied with their statistics in their attribution of risk correlations, look at how serious second hand smoke is treated as a serious concern and that was used to move the public against the cigarette companies; citing that smokers heavily affect asthma sufferers. However, the number of asthma sufferers climbed as the number of smokers declined [1], suggesting, statistically, that smoking was good overall for society. Then the government turns around and uses the smokescreen, good one Agustus, to levy a tax on the cigarettes themselves, enabling a ridiculous tax on the poor to maintain their habit. Now as smokers transition away in numbers to the less taxed and insanely less-taxed e-cigarettes, there is a push to do the same horror statistics as cigarettes; witness the e-cigarette test that used a highly modified tube to show the possibility of formaldehyde developing [2]. This being said, I have no doubt that smoking increases lung cancer and other risks. The problem is the environment in which the sides of an argument push their agendas. The politics are very real when a politician can easily overcome political hurdles to give out pork projects that would otherwise be tied up in regulatory hell. Solyndra gets built, politicians photo-op, donors get paid back, fails. Solar farms are fast-tracked through regulatory processes and impact the environment at magnitudes larger than oil [4]. Politicians recognize this, fund projects that create the article's headline and then use the issue to push an agenda which gets money to donors who in turn give it back to them next time they run a campaign. BIGGEST EXAMPLE of the lengths politicians will go to [5]: Senator Timothy Wirth: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. DEBORAH AMOS: Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? Senator Timothy Wirth: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot. [1] http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/urbanmaap/projects/projects_asthma2.html http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/urbanmaap/projects/projec... [2] http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706 http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706 [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-solartrust-bankruptcy-idUSBRE8310ZV20120402 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-solartrust-bank..., http://freebeacon.com/issues/billionaire-trying-to-force-costly-green-mandate-on-new-york/ http://freebeacon.com/issues/billionaire-trying-to-force-cos..., [4] http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/burned-birds-become-new-environmental-victims-energy-quest-n184426 http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/burned-birds-beco... [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCfxxXRRdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCfxxXRRdY

KevinEldon 12y ago

A colleague of mine in Sacramento has installed solar power and expects to recover the investment in 6 years. If you're serious about using solar it seems like something that's achievable without mortgaging your life.

strictnein 12y ago
California has the highest (I believe) state subsidies for this sort of thing. My aunt and uncle just did the same thing, and they live north of LA. It makes me wonder two things: 1. What is the ROI without the subsidies? 2. How much lower would the price be if the subsidies didn't exist?
- ams6110 12y ago
  Subsidies don't recover the investment, they just make other people pay for it.
  - primroot 12y ago
    ... or potentially pay for their own negative externalities.
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      Other people pay, regardless of whether they produce negative externalities or not.

sgt101 12y ago

Rather than looking at the politics perhaps you could look at the science? What would it take to convince you? Seriously - if nothing can then we have departed from rational debate, but if there is evidence that would sway you then it would be great to identify it.

padobson 12y ago
I have a number of questions that I've never been able to find satisfactory answers to, and if I got them I could be convinced. But first, let me say, that this may well be moot. I think solar energy is the way to go. I think the sooner human beings stop burning things they find in the ground for energy, the better. I'll happily give my vote or my money to an elegant solution to make this happen. Next, my nutshell understanding of global warming: Temperature and carbon-based greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are closely correlated. For as far back as we can measure (many millennia when using ice cores), atmospheric temperate has been stable along with CO2 concentrations (about 280ppm). Sometime in mid 18th century, CO2 concentrations started to uptick, which caused a rise in temperatures, which in turn caused a rise in CO2 concentrations, compounding continuously to present day levels (1.5 degree temperature increase, ~400 ppm CO2 concentrations). The best explanation for the shift in the balance of the carbon cycle is the additional gases that humans add by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and making concrete. My questions: 1. Every carbon-temperature hockey stick chart I've seen starts in 1750, when humans were a negligible atmospheric carbon source. Even today, human beings are a minor source of carbon-based gases in the fast carbon cycle. While I can certainly accept that it would only take a minor addition to throw the whole system out of balance, the timing seems strange to me. How do we know that humans are responsible for the initial rise in CO2 concentrations above 280ppm that started 250 years ago when emissions paled in comparison to what they are today? 2. I've seen lots of charts that correlate greenhouse gas concentrations with temperature, but the charts I've seen (like this one: http://bit.ly/18UFLMA http://bit.ly/18UFLMA) that correlate greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions don't seem to correlate as strongly until the blade of the hockey stick, and even then the correlation usually flips, with the proportion of human emissions surpassing the proportion of CO2 concentrations. If humans are directly responsible for present day greenhouse gas concentrations, shouldn't emissions and CO2 concentrations more closely correlate? It seems like greenhouse gas concentrations don't meaningfully rise until temperature meaningfully rises first as a result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations. 3. Water vapor is a much more abundant greenhouse gas than any gases emitted by human activity. While I understand that other greenhouse gases simply have a higher capacity for trapping heat, what I don't understand is how significantly humans could impact the greenhouse effect when they don't substantially alter the most quantitatively significant greenhouse gas. 4. The most convincing argument for anthropomorphic climate change, to me, is the lack of a viable alternative. Solar forcing seems to be the best alternative offered. Do the climate models used to support anthropomorphic climate change account for variability in solar output? Is there variability in solar output? How is this measured?

DanBC 12y ago

> There's just too much politics involved When tobacco was under attack the companies paid for scientists and doctors to spread misleading information; they paid for FUD. Those same scientists are now employed by oil and energy companies and they are using the same tactics. The only reason there's "politics" involved is because one side is deliberately spreading lies about the entirety of the science, even the bits that we are sure about.

bottled_poe 12y ago
The only reason? Don't you think it is a possibility that this is all an attempt to artificially raise costs? With increased efficiency of production, one might expect the cost of energy to decrease, but unfortunately we will need to raise them because 'climate change'. Looks like you will need to keep working your 9-5 in order to fund your way of life. Someone (not me) might say this looks like business as usual.
strictnein 12y ago
This is nothing like tobacco and the amount of money spent on research to support AGW absolutely dwarfs the amount of money that the energy companies spends. Here's a simple question: for the ground based sensors used in a significant portion of land based temperature readings, what happens if you just simply forgot to mow the grass for a couple of weeks. Or, in general, just don't mow it short enough? Answer: you'll get readings 2-5F too high, especially at night. The biggest issue is that the land based sensor data we rely on is kind of junk and is constantly being tweaked and changed, and the satellite based data is only marginally better.
Agustus 12y ago
Even in the smoking realm there was politics. Because there are no adults in a room to make judgement calls anymore, you need to place your claim on zero or nothing. The smoking industry could not admit there might be the slightest possibility of a link, otherwise they would have a BPA-plastic situation on their hands; the public goes into hysteria over a possible link. The lie had to be maintained in order to preserve the company. The government lied with their statistics in their attribution of risk correlations, look at how serious second hand smoke is treated as a serious concern and that was used to move the public against the cigarette companies; citing that smokers heavily affect asthma sufferers. However, the number of asthma sufferers climbed as the number of smokers declined [1], suggesting, statistically, that smoking was good overall for society. Then the government turns around and uses the smokescreen, good one Agustus, to levy a tax on the cigarettes themselves, enabling a ridiculous tax on the poor to maintain their habit. Now as smokers transition away in numbers to the less taxed and insanely less-taxed e-cigarettes, there is a push to do the same horror statistics as cigarettes; witness the e-cigarette test that used a highly modified tube to show the possibility of formaldehyde developing [2]. This being said, I have no doubt that smoking increases lung cancer and other risks. The problem is the environment in which the sides of an argument push their agendas. The politics are very real when a politician can easily overcome political hurdles to give out pork projects that would otherwise be tied up in regulatory hell. Solyndra gets built, politicians photo-op, donors get paid back, fails. Solar farms are fast-tracked through regulatory processes and impact the environment at magnitudes larger than oil [4]. Politicians recognize this, fund projects that create the article's headline and then use the issue to push an agenda which gets money to donors who in turn give it back to them next time they run a campaign. BIGGEST EXAMPLE of the lengths politicians will go to [5]: Senator Timothy Wirth: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. DEBORAH AMOS: Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? Senator Timothy Wirth: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot. [1] http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/urbanmaap/projects/projects_asthma2.html http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/urbanmaap/projects/projec... [2] http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706 http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706 [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-solartrust-bankruptcy-idUSBRE8310ZV20120402 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-solartrust-bank..., http://freebeacon.com/issues/billionaire-trying-to-force-costly-green-mandate-on-new-york/ http://freebeacon.com/issues/billionaire-trying-to-force-cos..., [4] http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/burned-birds-become-new-environmental-victims-energy-quest-n184426 http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/burned-birds-beco... [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCfxxXRRdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCfxxXRRdY