jyamada;842487783 said:

---

Regarding "settled science":

Please provide examples of any global warming/climate change advocates who have used the term "settled science".

---

Is Dajo9 considered a global warming/climate change advocate?

TummyoftheGB;842487800 said:

---

Finally, some much-needed action….Congressional appropriations bill contains targeted cuts to climate change research at the National Science Foundation. Because, you know, the U.S. Reps are not scientists, but they know junk science when they hear about it through reliable sources (such as the Bearinsider Forum). What's especially ironic is that almost none of my climate science colleagues are especially political--we're not, as a discipline, advocating any particular solution. Some of us favor nuclear, some favor sequestration, some favor (rapid) conversion to solar, some favor emphasis on efficiency. But I guess the messenger must be shot, regardless.

By the way, I don't have the time and energy to correct all the complete and utter falsehoods that are being thrown out by the OP and those that have agreed in this thread. I guess that's what they're hoping for. I will say that they are on the tin foil hat level of "we staged the moon landing".

---

Tummy - I appreciate your participating in this thread and sharing your expertise/perspective. I have a few questions for you.

I take you at your word that you and your colleagues are not political. However, do you think that's an accurate assessment of other scientists? For example, the current "Summary for Policymakers" released by the IPCC is starkly unequivocal in its language ("Human influence on the climate system is clear" and "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and gas emissions are " extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century") while the explanation below these bullet points is often not nearly as unequivocal. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

I also note that the IPCC report contains language and policy recommendations that I think many would consider political (or at a minimum, advocating for particular solutions). In terms of other scientists, do you agree that many prominent climate scientists (James Hansen and Michael Mann come to mind) have engaged in overt political lobbying (against keystone for example) and/or efforts to silence their critics? Here are a few links that discuss what I'm referring to.

Skeptics should be arrested: https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html?_r=0

Mann says that advocacy is ok. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html?_r=0

And while were at it, let's sue people we disagree with http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/time-sue-climate-change-deniers

So my point is that the behavior of some scientist (presumably not you) is overtly political.

I have a final few questions which are probably the most important. Can you tell me to what extent human behavior is causing climate change and what the effects of that human-caused change will be? When will those changes occur? How certain are you in these conclusions? Why were prior climate models (and resulting predictions of doom) so wrong? Why do you believe the current models are more accurate?

Not trolling or condescending - I really am interested in your answers to the above.

68great;842487868 said:

---

good point. Lest we forget while a number of posters on this board are wringing their hands over Solyndra, China is going full bore on solar energy. They are throwing buckets of money into becoming the world leader in solar and alternate energy. Why? Are the leaders of China just plain fools? NO! They will control the economy of tomorrow. The US will control the economy of yesterday. Guess which one will win.

I for one do not want the US to concede the alternate energy market to China. We need to develop the technologies and the markets to keep the US relevant in the new economy.

China is not timid about investing in this technology since they know that it will be profitable in the long run.

---

Here is a case where the average guy like me has no idea who is telling the truth. I read an article by greenpeace that while China is still building coal fired power plants, they aren't gonna use them...huh?...and that China is expanding their renewables. OK, fine...but then I read an article by Salon, hardly a rightwing rag though the author may be, I don't know, I don't keep track of these things like some of you) said it was a bunch of garbage to think China wasn't gonna be burning millions of tons of coal into the future..so who is right?....As usual, each side will point to the article/person who pumps up their side.....by the way, the Chinese hack U.S./pentagon computers more than any other country and don't give a sh*t about our copyright laws looking the other way while movies and knock off consumer goods are sold in the millions/billions(?). Not sure I'd trust them much....

Quote:

---

New Electric Production Capability Added in China During 2013
The new year brought some deserved celebration of the advance of renewable energy in China, as the government announced nearly 8 gigawatts of wind power additions and 3.6 gigawatts of new solar installed during 2013. But as I’ve previously pointed out, it is important to keep this laudable progress in perspective compared to the still staggeringly large annual increase in new China coal power capacity.

Not everyone did so. In a January 4 article entitled “China Roars Ahead with Renewables,” for example, The Ecologist magazine claimed: “Reports of China opening a huge new coal fired power station every week belie the reality – China is the new global powerhouse for renewable energy…It means that the growth of its electric power system – that underpins the entire modernization and industrialization of the country – is now being powered more by renewables than by fossil fuels.” The report concluded, “These results reveal just how strongly China is swinging behind renewables as its primary energy resource…”

Unfortunately, this rosy picture is not justified by the numbers. Once again, in 2013, coal was the big winner. As the graph below shows, when adjusted for capacity factor (the amount of energy each gigawatt of capacity puts out in a year), it’s clear that new fossil energy output in China, most of it coal, exceeded new wind energy by six times and solar by 27 times:

---

New Electric Production Capability Added in China During 2013

(Terawatt Hours)

Quote:

---

Similarly exaggerated is the article’s claim that this trend “will have a dramatic impact on China’s carbon emissions, slowing their growth and hastening the year when they will actually start falling.” Given the relative youth of China’s coal plants – the vast majority of them have been built since 1990 – they are unlikely to be bulldozed anytime soon. If their carbon is not abated, they will be emitting for another half century, with a carbon overhang of centuries.

In case you’re in any doubt about the longevity of this trend, Reuters carried a story three days later entitled “China Approves Massive New Coal Capacity Despite Pollution Fears” that delivered some sobering facts (emphasis added):

China approved the construction of more than 100 million tonnes of new coal production capacity in 2013 – six times more than a year earlier and equal to 10 percent of U.S. annual usage . . . The scale of the increase, which only includes major mines, reflects Beijing’s aim to put 860 million tonnes of new coal production capacity into operation over the five years to 2015, more than the entire annual output of India.

As we showed in a previous post, even under the most aggressive renewable development scenarios, roughly two thirds of China’s power in 2030 will come from fossil energy, the vast majority of it coal.

Much as one might wish that wind and solar (and for some, nuclear) were sending Chinese coal into the sunset, the facts suggest otherwise. Until we scale up carbon capture and storage, these ongoing China coal trends will continue to be an unmitigated climate disaster.

---

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/27/china_still_married_to_coal_despite_alleged_fling_with_clean_tech_newscred/

wifeisafurd;842487867 said:

---

Your misread the number. The .2 is based on all domestic emissions. That means, for example, I take away your computer since it runs on electricity, I close all schools, I take away all sporting events, all travel, anything that runs on power derived from fossil fuels, likely your job, and I could go on. What your not getting is what is being proposed by the Feds will have just a marginal impact at best of that .2 The concept that the earth getting warm in not a good measure for global warning makes me even more skeptical of an agenda. If you want to say carbon emissions in the environment are unhealthy, that is another thing all together. I get that, but than becomes from a regulatory standpoint a balancing act, and is real different from global warming.

The concept of abstraction is interesting since the whole concept of global warming is based on abstracts and modeling with assumptions. The scientists look at today's world trends and predict. That is why you see such a wide variance in predicted temperatures. Your dismissing the IPCC is going where I don't know any scientist that believes in global warming goes - these are the big names in the area. To now dismiss their work as an abstraction strikes me as dismissing essentially all the science out there. No one knows exactly what the impact of global warming will be, and to insist upon that strikes me as something I expect out of non-believers, not skeptics or believers.

In terms of global emissions, i know people like to point at China and the US because they are the two biggest emitters, but what about the other 2/3 of the world emissions? You gonna get a treaty with Russia, whose primary resource is oil and kill their economy?

---

I don't understand what you are doing here WIAF-The US currently produces 19% of global carbon dioxide. Over the next 15 years that will reduce to about 15-16%-why not talk in this language as opposed to a temperature rise language which is not only another "model but relatively useless as a lingua franca

GB54;842487876 said:

---

China derives 1% of its energy from renewables; 69% from coal, 18% from oil. Full bore is mostly a Potemkin village at this stage

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ch

---

Of Course its main sources of energy right now are coal and oil. I did not say they were not. Why, becaue China wants to grow right now.
But it is looking beyond the "right now" to the future and it is preparing to dominate the age of alternate energy.
The US is already well set up to take advantage of the "right now" energy economy. It needs to prepare for the future.
As we dither and debate about whther there is global warming and whether Man is accelerating the global warming and "what oh what are we to do". China is investing in alternate energy while we are sitting on our thumbs.
We will be left behind in the future.

68great;842487888 said:

---

Of Course its main sources of energy right now are coal and oil. I did not say they were not. Why, becaue China wants to grow right now.
But it is looking beyond the "right now" to the future and it is preparing to dominate the age of alternate energy.
The US is already well set up to take advantage of the "right now" energy economy. It needs to prepare for the future.
As we dither and debate about whther there is global warming and whehter Man is accelerating the global warming and what oh what are we to do.
We will be left behind in the future.

---

There is no reason to suppose that China by its actions or investments is better planned for the future than we are. Quite the contrary we have a much more diversified energy mix. 10% of our energy mix comes from renewables as opposed to 1% from China, so we are leading not them.

GB54;842487894 said:

---

There is no reason to suppose that China by its actions or investments is better planned for the future than we are. Quite the contrary we have a much more diversified energy mix. 10% of our energy mix comes from renewables as opposed to 1% from China, so we are leading not them.

---

Here are two small examples.

Let's say that some one in the US wants to buy solar panels. US manufacturers are being under cut by Chinese made solar panels since the Chinese government gives financial support to these manufacturers. The current Republican controlled Congress does not want another Solyndra so it stops supporting US manufacturefs of solar panels. Guess what, guys. In a few years the manufacturing market for solar panels is controlled by which country. yes, it's name begins with a "C" and we don't mean Cal. So will the US have the lead in this facet of alternate energy.

I understand that China is getting into supporting the electric vehicles and is setting up huge plants for Tesla in China. Soon thereafter we in the US will be buying the electric cars made in China.

But not to worry, the US is the best of the best and we will always maintain the leadership of the world in all things. So lets not talk about implementing national alternate energy initiatives. Let's forever debate whether Global Warming is real and, if so, whether man has added to it.

68great;842487914 said:

---

Here are two small examples.

Let's say that some one in the US wants to buy solar panels. US manufacturers are being under cut by Chinese made solar panels since the Chinese government gives financial support to these manufacturers. The current Republican controlled Congress does not want another Solyndra so it stops supporting US manufacturefs of solar panels. Guess what, guys. In a few years the manufacturing market for solar panels is controlled by which country. yes, it's name begins with a "C" and we don't mean Cal. So will the US have the lead in this facet of alternate energy.

I understand that China is getting into supporting the electric vehicles and is setting up huge plants for Tesla in China. Soon thereafter we in the US will be buying the electric cars made in China.

But not to worry, the US is the best of the best and we will always maintain the leadership of the world in all things. So lets not talk about implementing national alternate energy initiatives. Let's forever debate whether Global Warming is real and, if so, whether man has added to it.

---

Or how about this... China is powering its solar panel manufacturing with coal plants (and child labor). My mind is blown!

oski003;842487916 said:

---

Or how about this... China is powering its solar panel manufacturing with coal plants (and child labor). My mind is blown!

---

Should they making them by hand out of mud?

:facepalm

68great;842487914 said:

---

Here are two small examples.

Let's say that some one in the US wants to buy solar panels. US manufacturers are being under cut by Chinese made solar panels since the Chinese government gives financial support to these manufacturers. The current Republican controlled Congress does not want another Solyndra so it stops supporting US manufacturefs of solar panels. Guess what, guys. In a few years the manufacturing market for solar panels is controlled by which country. yes, it's name begins with a "C" and we don't mean Cal. So will the US have the lead in this facet of alternate energy.

I understand that China is getting into supporting the electric vehicles and is setting up huge plants for Tesla in China. Soon thereafter we in the US will be buying the electric cars made in China.

But not to worry, the US is the best of the best and we will always maintain the leadership of the world in all things. So lets not talk about implementing national alternate energy initiatives. Let's forever debate whether Global Warming is real and, if so, whether man has added to it.

---

We are implementing initiatives- that's what you don't get. The reason is we can afford to, while China cant because we are becoming a service economy and they are a low cost manufacturer and a slave to cost. And because no matter how dysfunctional this government is, unlike China, people can still In some part control their destiny. California's decided to reduce greenhouse gasses as a state by imposing cap and trade . Let me know when a China province decides this.

The real dirty secret here is that we are also exporting our pollution and coal to China to make our goods. Do you think Apple cares whether their product is made with coal instead of renewables or that the Chinese are despoiling their water, air and health.? Of course not, they will build their energy efficient headquarters and bask in self righteousness.

The effects of global warming are not normally distributed.

68great;842487868 said:

---

good point. Lest we forget while a number of posters on this board are wringing their hands over Solyndra, China is going full bore on solar energy. They are throwing buckets of money into becoming the world leader in solar and alternate energy. Why? Are the leaders of China just plain fools? NO! They will control the economy of tomorrow. The US will control the economy of yesterday. Guess which one will win.

I for one do not want the US to concede the alternate energy market to China. We need to develop the technologies and the markets to keep the US relevant in the new economy.

China is not timid about investing in this technology since they know that it will be profitable in the long run.

---

Solyndra was not a great company but the Chinese dumping solar panels wiped out a lot of companies, good and bad. I think most forms of alternative energy needs a technological breakthrough to make a quantum leap in efficiency. Fortunately there is a lot of work in grapheme, genetically modified enzymes, and other areas that have potential and hopefully we are leading the way.

Some of you questioning Big Science need to get with the program...or a re-education camp...

FCBear;842487990 said:

---

Some of you questioning Big Science need to get with the program...or a re-education camp...

---

Someone please wake me when The Rapture comes.

NYCGOBEARS;842487993 said:

---

Someone please wake me when The Rapture comes.

---

It's more of a Rupture...

FCBear;842488000 said:

---

It's more of a Rupture...

---

Only for Michelle Bachmann.

Cal_Fan2;842487782 said:

---

I already made my thought known on the "blob" thread which run close to yours but I also agree there are many extreme right wingers who sound foolish or down right stupid on this subject as well, but I digress. I mentioned the nuclear power in that thread and that is what really burns me. I have gone to certain lengths to admit some/several/many on the right do fabricate/ignore science but it really isn't the majority. The majority are doing things for political reasons, but the same guys here who vilify the right ignore the hypocrisy of the left also. 65% of those same AAAS scientists who believe in AGW also say we should be building more nuclear plants. Even Obama wants more natural gas. Just over the weekend when I simpleton like me is still reading up on these things, I read several articles from enviros that don't want either nuclear OR natural gas....WTF?....I mean, now it is the psychology of nuclear power being bad and methane is almost as bad as CO2. This is what gets me.

---

I'm a big fan of nuclear power. We really need to invest in new nuke technology, as it really can be clean if done right. The plants running in this country are all 60 year old dinosaurs. We can and should do better.

GB54;842487894 said:

---

There is no reason to suppose that China by its actions or investments is better planned for the future than we are. Quite the contrary we have a much more diversified energy mix. 10% of our energy mix comes from renewables as opposed to 1% from China, so we are leading not them.

---

Ah, but an authoritarian government need only say "make it so" and a portion of its GDP will be directed toward whatever it wants. Here, we have to go through congress. They lack the economy. We lack the political will. I don't know what's worse.

68great;842487914 said:

---

Here are two small examples.

Let's say that some one in the US wants to buy solar panels. US manufacturers are being under cut by Chinese made solar panels since the Chinese government gives financial support to these manufacturers. The current Republican controlled Congress does not want another Solyndra so it stops supporting US manufacturefs of solar panels. Guess what, guys. In a few years the manufacturing market for solar panels is controlled by which country. yes, it's name begins with a "C" and we don't mean Cal. So will the US have the lead in this facet of alternate energy.

I understand that China is getting into supporting the electric vehicles and is setting up huge plants for Tesla in China. Soon thereafter we in the US will be buying the electric cars made in China.

But not to worry, the US is the best of the best and we will always maintain the leadership of the world in all things. So lets not talk about implementing national alternate energy initiatives. Let's forever debate whether Global Warming is real and, if so, whether man has added to it.

---

Yes, the US needs to subsidize solar panel makers if it wants to compete, but why on earth would we want to subsidize plain 'ol silicon? They are too energy intensive to produce. Even the wafers made for computers are manufactured in Asia nowadays.

Instead, save the cash and spend it on research. Perovskites are very interesting materials that may be the replacement for Si.

I don't see your Tesla point. Still an American company, regardless of where their factories are.

NYCGOBEARS;842488005 said:

---

Only for Michelle Bachmann.

---

Sexist microagression...you might set off triggers...

FCBear;842488031 said:

---

Sexist microagression...you might set off triggers...

---

Get out of here you commie bastard....or bring donuts....whatever.

Cal_Fan2;842488041 said:

---

Get out of here you commie bastard....or bring donuts....whatever.

---

Lol. Ummm... Donuts...

BerlinerBaer;842488024 said:

---

I'm a big fan of nuclear power. We really need to invest in new nuke technology, as it really can be clean if done right. The plants running in this country are all 60 year old dinosaurs. We can and should do better.



Ah, but an authoritarian government need only say "make it so" and a portion of its GDP will be directed toward whatever it wants. Here, we have to go through congress. They lack the economy. We lack the political will. I don't know what's worse.



Yes, the US needs to subsidize solar panel makers if it wants to compete, but why on earth would we want to subsidize plain 'ol silicon? They are too energy intensive to produce. Even the wafers made for computers are manufactured in Asia nowadays.

Instead, save the cash and spend it on research. Perovskites are very interesting materials that may be the replacement for Si.

I don't see your Tesla point. Still an American company, regardless of where their factories are.

---

I don't agree with the duties on China's solar panels--from a US national interest we should be happy if China is subsidizing our solar energy--if China gave us free solar panels would we refuse them?

NYCGOBEARS;842488005 said:

---

Only for Michelle Bachmann.

---

lol

As the song says, "We're having a heat wave." Lots of 'em! (And rainstorms, too.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/science/new-study-links-weather-extremes-to-global-warming.html?ref=science&_r=0

JimSox;842488079 said:

---

As the song says, "We're having a heat wave." Lots of 'em! (And rainstorms, too.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/science/new-study-links-weather-extremes-to-global-warming.html?ref=science&_r=0

---

OK now you have gone and let loose the "Global Warming Skeptic Zombies"

(I borrow the term Zombie from Paul Krugman who just a few weeks ago labeled certain theories as "zombies," by which he means ideas that have an "unblemished record of failures" but are still taken seriously by the GOP's base which is so devoted to them that "no amount of evidence or logic can kill [them].")

Some posters have had their anti-global warming arguments shot down time and time again. But despite being shot down time and time again, the posters do not accept defeat but rise again and again demanding: "More evidence, I need more evidence before I accept Global Warming as true."
Forget what all the credible scientists say; and forget that I am not a scientist myself. I cannot accept what they say.

GB54;842487887 said:

---

I don't understand what you are doing here WIAF-The US currently produces 19% of global carbon dioxide. Over the next 15 years that will reduce to about 15-16%-why not talk in this language as opposed to a temperature rise language which is not only another "model but relatively useless as a lingua franca

---

Now I am confused. The .2 is the change in temps if you eliminate all domestic use of fossil fuels and you take the mid-points of the IPCC study. If I said something different I didn't mean to. Another way to try and show that the impact of the federal rules is limited is to take the US consumption (not production) and say what would happen if the rules actually get enforced. In fact, the thinking is that US production (rather than consumption) will increase over time.

sycasey;842487493 said:

---

That doesn't even make sense. Government regulation would probably impact everyone, that's the whole point. What arguments do you hear "affluent liberals" making that would have the government enacting environmental policies that do not impact them? Specifics please.



I'm only one guy, so there's only so much I can do. I live in an apartment building, so I can't really use solar panels. The last time I needed to buy a car I decided to buy a hybrid. I take public transit to work.



Well, in this country we have one very large political party that essentially takes the position that global warming doesn't exist. Given that, it's very hard to get any significant government action to happen in the first place. So come back and ask me when it actually happens.

Also, any actions that have been taken in recent years (for example, the Obama administration's efforts to invest in renewable energy) would not bear any fruit for many years. So again, check back with me in a decade or so. There are no quick fixes.



The UN thinks we should do nothing about global warming? That's news to me. Where did you get that?

But it does appear your position is "Let's do nothing" so thanks for clarifying that at least.

---

You should read my posts above. There is a huge federal program, its impact on global warming is marginal at best, the program will have a significant, but debated (in terms of magnitude) impact on the economy, the program should help with local air pollution, and the UN report, which is a really big deal in environmental circles, also is really depressing and basically says global warming exists and probably is irreversible (though could be mitigated and maybe controlled). The UN report (and more specifically the scientist group behind the report) is rather a doomsday scenario, of which I am a skeptic.

Most hard core environmentalists believe the only action is a worldwide carbon tax, and while they may be right, its not going to happen any time soon. You can go on the internet to find out why.

wifeisafurd;842488224 said:

---

Most hard core environmentalists believe the only action is a worldwide carbon tax, and while they may be right, its not going to happen any time soon. You can go on the internet to find out why.

---

I would agree with that. I mean, in theory it would be great, but probably not practical.

sycasey;842488238 said:

---

I would agree with that. I mean, in theory it would be great, but probably not practical.

---

Why even try? Humans only react to crisis.

BearGoggles;842487692 said:

---

You really discredit yourself by quoting the 97% figure that has been thrown out there in a very misleading way. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
There is absolutely no consensus - much less scientific proof - of the amount of human contributions to climate change or even the amount of climate change itself (due to data disagreements).

If as you say the IPCC outlined several possible outcomes (I believe you), why did we only hear about one of them? The very worst one? This is the chicken little syndrome I referred to. It is no longer science, but advocacy. And that is a big part of the problem. Let's discuss all the possibilities, rather than only very worst one. Instead, we're told that we must accept the very worst outcome (unsupported by prior predictions) as settled. Of course, the very worst outcome also supports the need for more government $$ for these very same "scientists" - they have a financial and political stake too.

I have no idea how or why you can claim I don't want to know the truth. Just because I don't blindly accept "your truth" - which you must admit is not based on a proven scientific model - that doesn't mean I don't want to know the answer (i.e., to what extent humans are causing climate change and what that means for future climate). Unlike you, I don't pretend to know. The reason (some) conservatives jumped on the duke study is because of people who claim the matter is 97% "settled" and beyond discussion or debate.

I have kids and, like you, care about their future (yes, non-progressives love our children too and even think about their future. We also think about humanity in general.). Here are things that concern me far more than global warning (in no particular order).

1. Poverty - domestic and worldwide. Cheap energy helps mitigate this by the way. http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/07/08/climate_change_isnt_worlds_biggest_problem_106585.html
2. Healthcare - quality and cost, not just universal coverage
3. The mounting national debt and generational theft that is taking money from my children as we speak. What happens when bond interest rates return to historical norms?
4. The rising cost of higher education.
5. The lagging economy, particularly poor job growth and wage stagnation.
6. Our country's decaying infrastructure.
7. Chinese expansionism.
8. Cancer
9. Instability in Pakistan
10.Iran with a nuclear weapon.
11. Iran's expansionism in the middle east
12. Russian aggression and expansionism.

Each of the problems above is a far greater threat (if not actuality) than global warming. Yet progressives are obsessed with fossil fuels. Yes - I know we can multi-task. But the climate alarmism - which is not supported by current scientific understanding - receives disproportionate attention. I'm sure you do care about your children - and I submit that the above are far more threatening to them than climate change.

---

I don't want to get involved in the other back and forth, but I would like to clarify what I read in the IPCC UN report, admittedly some time ago in connection with work. Their conclusions were not different scenarios. They concluded (and note I am not saying I or any poster agree or concluded):

1) There is global warming
2) Its irreversible and material
3) The predicted impact is over a big temperature range because there are a lot of variables such the earth's sensitivity which is not well defined, how much we use chemicals that impact global warming, which is not that well known in developing countries, etc.

What people may be calling scenarios likely is this range of temperature change based on using different assumptions. But its not different scenarios and its doomsday (or at least depressing) reading.

If you can't stand evolution then get out of the environment.....I'm excited for GW....

FCBear;842488392 said:

---

If you can't stand evolution then get out of the environment.....I'm excited for GW....

---

Bush?

Cal_Fan2;842487801 said:

---

I know YOU do, and I agree with YOU about moving forward on renewables regardless of who is right or how fast climate change is progressing. But I wasn't writing to you sycasey, I'm writing to all the posters who are bashing others for their beliefs. Fine, bash away, but answer my question (not you sycasey) about what fuels we can use now or use as a bridge. I'd like them to address what many on the left say about these issues since they seem to want to speak for everyone on the right....count me in as one of the ones that want to make changes with YOU sycasey towards a cleaner and vibrant tomorrow....

---

I guess I am going to jump in. One thing that pissed me off about the EPA global warming landfill guidelines is it attacks one of those things we in California like to think are renewables. Most Cali County Sanitation Districts trap gases from landfills (so they are not released) and pipe them into Gas to Energy facilities which maintain emission levels well below those required by the various Air Quality Management District and most other renewable sources of energy, and are huge providers of alternatives to SCE and PG&E. This is important since we are channeling people to using electric cars, etc. that electricity be produced by less fossil fuels. Nevertheless, because of the new Federal rules equated these facilities with a landfill since they are physically placed at a landfill, they are shutting down unless our Senators get a fix, and there will instead be methane emitted into the atmosphere. So if renewables are going to part of the focus, I hope someone with greater brain capacity is administering the government side of the effort in the future.

Bobodeluxe;842488396 said:

---

Bush?

---

I'm always excited for Bush...

FCBear;842488400 said:

---

I'm always excited for Bush...

---

Not me. Jenna looks just like George. Ugh...

wifeisafurd;842488398 said:

---

I guess I am going to jump in. One thing that pissed me off about the EPA global warming landfill guidelines is it attacks one of those things we in California like to think are renewables. Most Cali County Sanitation Districts trap gases from landfills (so they are not released) and pipe them into Gas to Energy facilities which maintain emission levels well below those required by the various Air Quality Management District and most other renewable sources of energy, and are huge providers of alternatives to SCE and PG&E. This is important since we are channeling people to using electric cars, etc. that electricity be produced by less fossil fuels. Nevertheless, because of the new Federal rules equated these facilities with a landfill since they are physically placed at a landfill, they are shutting down unless our Senators get a fix, and there will instead be methane emitted into the atmosphere. So if renewables are going to part of the focus, I hope someone with greater brain capacity is administering the government side of the effort in the future.

---

You and me both. I don't have nearly the smarts on this as you, been reading up a lot lately. As I mentioned in another post, now enviros are upset about natural gas with fracking, increased methane and only 2/3 less CO2. It is like nobody is willing to meet half way and use a modicum of common sense as far as bridge fuels go.......and that bridge might be a very long one before we get nuclear/solar/wind/whatever scaled to run a nation of 300 million. Isn't the new Berkeley Global Campus on an old landfill/toxic dump? Maybe we should scrap that too.....*arghhhhh*

burritos;842488354 said:

---

Why even try? Humans only react to crisis.

---

A lot of this has to do with the quality of Human leadership and its fragmented nature.

It is difficult to get people to react to a particular problem when:
one segment of the leadership says that the problem is only imaginary being supported to steal your money.
another segment of the leadership says that maybe there is a problem but it is not as serious as being made out to be.
a third segment of the leadership says that the problem might be serious but there is little that can be done to solve the problem any way.

Under these circumstances humans with poor leadership react to a problem only when problem has become a crisis and they can see for themselves that the problem is real and must be addressed.