Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[StrayKAT]

More than 97% of published articles that expressed a conclusion about anthropogenic climate change endorsed human-caused global warming.

Yes, scientific consensus can be overturned. But it’s not a vote, nor is it a debate. It is scientific evidence of equal or better quality and quantity than what established the consensus. And since science is not dogmatic and close-minded, there can be a glacial change from one consensus to another.

The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong. The consensus is so clear that many scientists call it the “Theory of anthropogenic climate change,” which would mean it’s at the pinnacle of scientific principles, essentially an unassailable fact.

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

Some of the very scientists used to support some studies denounced them and were used.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

All dissenting voices are silenced or ignored because it threatens their funding.

If IPCC did an about-face and said, "sorry, we were wrong!" What would happen? IPCC would be shutdown. NOAA would have a lot of their climate research projects shut down (many impact NASA as well). Tesla would go belly up because of unfunded debts. Wind and solar subsidies would vanish. All of the conservation programs targeted at "saving" species from climate change would be defunded. The list goes on and on and on. Billions (if not trillions) of dollars would shift practically overnight. They can't afford to admit they're wrong now. They're institutionally obligated to perpetuate the myth.

There's only two things that are absolutely destructive to the science: politics (destroys integrity) and religion (erosion of rationalization).

 

[StrayKAT]

I can only give this one bit of praise atm. It's the most powerful taxing proposal in history. I've never seen anything this unassailable and hallowed... with this much potential benefit to ruling classes and lawmakers.

I mean, if I was to go about gutting people and confusing everyone on whether it was even right or wrong, this would be my ticket. Past governments hardly even tried to veil what they were doing and taxed in the most absurd manner. But this is brilliant.

 

[R-T-B]

so...panic? What else could they do?

They actaully were unaware there was a problem until the explosion due to a badly placed thermal sensor (again bad design).

Otherwise no disagreement re them being bad reactor designs.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I can only give this one bit of praise atm. It's the most powerful taxing proposal in history. I've never seen anything this unassailable and hallowed... with this much potential benefit to ruling classes and lawmakers.

Carbon Tax. Too right. It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.

They actaully were unaware there was a problem until the explosion due to a badly placed thermal sensor (again bad design).

Otherwise no disagreement.

It's shocking they're still operating:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx
Granted, there's only 11 total across three sites.

The combination of graphite moderator and water coolant is found in no other power reactors in the world. As the Chernobyl accident showed, several of the RBMK's design characteristics – in particular, the control rod design and a positive void coefficient – were unsafe. A number of significant design changes were made after the Chernobyl accident to address these problems.

What makes the design unique:

When fuel channels are isolated, the fuel assemblies can be lifted into and out of the reactor, allowing fuel replenishment while the reactor is in operation.

 

[R-T-B]

If IPCC did an about-face and said, "sorry, we were wrong!" What would happen?

My guess is none of your theories at all would come to pass, but rather some sort of middle ground, as it's still clear the earth is changing for whatever reason and there is a desire amonst some rational people to study that.

Really, this doesn't need to be black vs white.

It's shocking they're still operating:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx
Granted, there's only 11 total across three sites.

I'm aware. No disagreement.

Carbon Tax. Too right. It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.

You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax." I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.

 

[StrayKAT]

Carbon Tax. Too right. It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.


It's shocking they're still operating:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx
Granted, there's only 11 total across three sites.

Not to mention it keeps the powerful indefinitely powerful. Things like the Paris Accord arbitrarily set carbon limits on nations that haven't even reached their own "industrial eras" yet. Keeping them perpetually stuck in the 3rd world, dependent on fuel and resources from the developed nations - and keeping these bigger, advanced nations where they are.

If I was a Leftist, I'd especially revolt at this idea. Or at least, if I was a Leninist. Leninism's (as opposed to Marxism's) whole schtick is that Communism is more about the war against Imperialism (not merely Upper Classes) and that the third world needed to rise up and take back their own production and resources.

Yet now we see leftists wanting the exact opposite: a third world perpetually dependent and disempowered. They'll seemingly do anything to fight against the Bad Orange Man.

Ahem... But I'm not a Leninist. I just find it all ironic. Some massive cognitive dissonance going on here.

 

[R-T-B]

Carbon Tax. Too right. It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.

You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax." I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.

with this much potential benefit to ruling classes and lawmakers.

You have looked at whose running the government lately, I assume?

Ahem... But I'm not a Leninist. I just find it all ironic. Some massive cognitive dissonance going on here.

Not if you truly believe that you are averting genocide. I'd rather be poor than dead. Travel to your foes mindset if you really want to understand, otherwise it's just words.

 

[StrayKAT]

You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax." I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.



You have looked at whose running the government lately, I assume?



Not if you truly believe that you are averting genocide. I'd rather be poor than dead. Travel to your foes mindset if you really want to understand, otherwise it's just words.

It's absurd at face value. All I have to do is look at the history of the earth and see how resilient humans (and other animals) have been... even under worse conditions. It's been hotter than this before, as recent as the medieval period. It's difficult to even say that was "worse" in any real sense anyways. This is the age of cathedral building. Human activity was remarkable, if anything.

Half of the time, it's not even about "genocide" per se anyways. They say they're protecting the Earth itself. Which is even more absurd. And just arrogant. Earth can survive everything from a landscape and atmosphere rife with volcanic activity to millenia long ice ages.

 

[hat]

The Earth itself is pretty durable. We couldn't destroy it even if we detonated every nuclear weapon we have all at once. If we really just wanted to ruin the environment and wipe out as much life as possible, though, there's a few ways that could be done... but the Earth itself would survive and recover after a while.

 

[StrayKAT]

Mind you, I'm definitely against pollution. I know I've already this multiple times, but just wanted to throw that out there again. To me, it's a separate issue. And the Earth can recover from that as well, but it'd take way too long that it wouldn't be wise to be too careless about the subject.

 

[Assimilator]

But why is that? Because they can't decide between the priority of supplying reliable power and the priority of being environmentally friendly. The sane policy is both: meet your power needs while trying to do right by the environment. Refusal to consider coal means you're going to have expensive and/or unreliable power. That's exactly what they got.

When the original doing-right-by-the-environment plan was proposed, there was plenty of time to enact it. Then the coal lobby (Murdoch) came in and got the government changed and the plan stopped. Then the voters realised that the coal guys are useless and voted them out, and the new government reinstated the environmentally friendly plan. Wash, rinse, repeat and you end up in a scenario where nobody wins.

Most Americans support nuclear power but the noisy minority can stop any from being built due to safety/environment concerns. That lawsuit I pointed out might actually be more important than it appears on the surface: it's between federal necessity and state rights. Casual knowledge of the case suggests that state rights will win because federal had the opportunity to make necessity clear but it did not. The fact that SCOTUS was willing to hear it means there is more to it than just that casual knowledge. If SCOTUS rules that the energy needs of the nation trump local environmental protectionism, then that ruling can form the foundation for nuclear projects going up across the nation.

Then there's two subsequent problems: USA's nuclear power programs and industry are out of practice. Even China and France are still predominantly building 1950s (but updated) style PWRs and BWRs (originally designed for nuclear submarines). They are not PBR nor FBR like what made clear since the 1970s is the best way to produce commercial power. So what's really needed right now is rapid prototyping for next generation commercial nuclear reactors designed explicitly to produce power safely, cleanly, and cheaply. I just don't see it happening, not when the environmentalists are screaming for wind and solar.

The noisy minority are not the only ones who benefit from the kibosh being put on nuclear. I'm quite sure that the drama around Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the resultant slumber of US nuclear power for three decades, was hyped up by the coal and oil industries.

My deep concern is that when the fusion power problem gets solved, they're going to continue to advocate for wind and solar over fusion. Are we doomed to 16th century energy sources forever?

If/when fusion happens, nobody's going to be able to find a valid reason to block it.

 

[StrayKAT]

You have looked at whose running the government lately, I assume?

Didn't catch this earlier. If you mean Trump, he hasn't built a lifestyle off of other people's taxes. He hasn't even gained that office except by his own funding. Not to mention he donates the presidential salary he gets now.

If you think I'm just calling out rich people in general, that wasn't my point.

 

[SoNic67]

You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax." I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.

The "rich" don't care about taxes. They pay max amount (%) anyway, leveraging another tax on top of that will just drop the base tax and in the end they will pay the same amount (%).

Also, politicians talk taxes in %, and that's a smokescreen. Did you buy anything in % lately? Me neither, they all want $ or Euros or whatever else.
What counts in the end is how much disposable income you have left (monthly/yearly). When that number is close to zero... any tax increase (in real money) will affect you.
When you have 100 million $ in disposable income, paying 1 million makes you look like a "saint", but really means nothing.

 

[bug]

The "rich" don't care about taxes. They pay max amount (%) anyway, leveraging another tax on top of that will just drop the base tax and in the end they will pay the same amount (%).

Also, politicians talk taxes in %, and that's a smokescreen. Did you buy anything in % lately? Me neither, they all want $ or Euros or whatever else.
What counts in the end is how much disposable income you have left (monthly/yearly). When that number is close to zero... any tax increase (in real money) will affect you.
When you have 100 million $ in disposable income, paying 1 million makes you look like a "saint", but really means nothing.

Your argument is self-defeating.

You don't like % taxation. Yet if you work in a factory, the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs. Whereas if I'm rich and own the factory, I may incur costs in the millions. Why wouldn't I care about that?

 

[StrayKAT]

Your argument is self-defeating.

You don't like % taxation. Yet if you work in a factory, the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs. Whereas if I'm rich and own the factory, I may incur costs in the millions. Why wouldn't I care about that?

Sadly, it doesn't matter what is done as far as corporations go. This is just hurts small/medium business. Corporations can just say "OK, cya.. sending my cash to Panama, shutting down all of our factories here while we build up infrastructure in India or China." They have all the bargaining power, for now.

 

[bug]

Sadly, it doesn't matter what is done as far as corporations go. This is just hurts small/medium business. Corporations can just say "OK, cya.. sending my cash to Panama, shutting down all of our factories here while we build up infrastructure in India or China." They have all the bargaining power, for now.

That's correct. That's also why socialism failed everywhere: you simply can't ignore big business, they have a point of view and you need to account for that, too.

 

[Assimilator]

Your argument is self-defeating.

You don't like % taxation. Yet if you work in a factory, the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs. Whereas if I'm rich and own the factory, I may incur costs in the millions. Why wouldn't I care about that?

For a minimum-wage factory worker, a few dozen bucks might be the difference between making rent this month or not.

A factory owner paying millions in tax is making tens of millions in revenue, but they don't need tens of millions of dollars every month unless they really like living large (in which case they won't own a factory for long). So after all their expenses are taken care of, the extra cash they have goes into an investment account. New tax comes in, their only concern is that they have slightly less to invest every month, not that their lifestyle has to change.

That's correct. That's also why socialism failed everywhere: you simply can't ignore big business, they have a point of view and you need to account for that, too.

You don't need to ignore them, that's what legislation is for. The problem is that deregulation and countries' short-sightedness in fighting to get corporations to their shores, has resulted in megacorporations that can dictate their own rules. That's what will destroy capitalism in the end.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...as it's still clear the earth is changing for whatever reason...

Where I live used to be under 1000 feet of ice. "Climate change" is natural. I really can't think of anything off the top of my head that is truly abnormal in terms of climate anywhere on Earth.

You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax." I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.

Poor people tend to drive older, more polluting vehicles. They also tend to get power from historically cheaper sources of power, like coal, that are heavily polluting. Carbon taxes disproportionately hit the poor. They have to be matched with refunds. Governments picking winners and losers instead of economic factors always creates problems down the road (e.g. the disaster that has become US healthcare).

If/when fusion happens, nobody's going to be able to find a valid reason to block it.

All of the reasons to fear the sun apply to fusion. Namely, all sorts of electromagnetic radition. Hydrogen is also a highly unstable fuel unless dropped to near 0 K.

 

[SoNic67]

the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs

And what does that to me? The factory has to pay millions in this scam and shuts down. Now I have no income.
My 2001 car will be impossible to drive due to taxes, now I have to walk? Buses don't do to my work and I can't afford $60k for new fancy "electrical" vehicle.
And even if it doesn't what's the point of the tax? It will not prevent people from eating or heating their houses. Or multiplying. It will not lower the heating effect (it is not man-made anyway).
It will just give politicians more money to play God with.

 

[dorsetknob]

Because they can't decide between the priority of supplying reliable power and the priority of being environmentally friendly. The sane policy is both: meet your power needs while trying to do right by the environment.

Australia is one of China's Biggest Supplier of Coal so yeh they dig it out of the ground and sell it to China who then burn it as Fuel for Polluting power Stations

 

[bug]

And what does that to me? The factory has to pay millions in this scam and shuts down. Now I have no income.
My 2001 car will be impossible to drive due to taxes, now I have to walk? Buses don't do to my work and I can't afford $60k for new fancy "electrical" vehicle.
And even if it doesn't what's the point of the tax? It will not prevent people from eating or heating their houses. Or multiplying. It will not lower the heating effect (it is not man-made anyway).
It will just give politicians more money to play God with.

Yes, everything is about you. Hold that thought, it's going to get you places.

 

[dorsetknob]

It will not lower the heating effect (it is not man-made anyway).

Breathes out "SNORT"
so the Squirrels are responsible for urbanization and the Urban heat-sink Phenomenon

 

[kapone32]

Anyone who doubts that Global warming is real just needs to look at the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere. When an Iceberg or Glacier melts it not only releases liquid but gas in the form of water vapour (fog). This rise explains the absolutely crazy hurricanes and typhoons that we are seeing on a more consistent basis. The scariest thing though is that water vapour is a better greenhouse gas than CO2.

Example A: Hurricane Sandy hit the US East Coast from Vermont to Florida at the same time.
Example B: There were 3 hurricanes in the Atlantic basin at the same time earlier this year
Example C: The clouds are so heavy now that they do not get over the Himalayas and explains why India gets almost double Monsoon rains and Russian wheat field have gone dry in some seasons
Example D: There have been 3 times in the last 5 years where we have gotten over 100 MM of rain in less than 3 hours where i live.
Example E: The melting is so string in the Arctic region that it forces the jet stream under the Great Lakes and England some years making for super cold and snowy winters. Anyone remember when Miami was -17 C about 5 years ago. I think they called it a Polar Vortex.
I believe that the increase in CO2 has lead to the following.

Example A: The increase in cardiovascular diseases around the world
Example B: The amount of dormant Volcanoes that have become active
Example C: The Earthquakes that are more prevalent today than ever before.

The best example of climate change though is to go to a senior's home and ask them how the weather has changed.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This rise explains the absolutely crazy hurricanes and typhoons that we are seeing on a more consistent basis.

Except there's really no evidence to support that:

Volcanoes ebb and flow: