The Climate Change Thread

[formerflanker]

If wanting to take action on climate change is a green driven agenda, how exactly would you describe the agenda to do absolutely nothing?

PJTV has a very good analysis of the anti-capitalism agenda of the climate change promoters. The "People's Climate Rally" in Oakland on September 21 included the following groups:
The Socialist Action
The Communist Party USA
The Revolutionary Communist Party USA (which calls for a total revolution in the U.S.)
The International Socialist Organization
The Socialist Alternative
The Democratic Socialists of America.
Pictures of their placards, stands, etc are here:
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/2...mask-admits-communist-agenda/?singlepage=true

 

[Pfitzy]

The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics agrees with you - access to cheap and reliable energy is a marker of human progress no matter how you define it.
Coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro are the primary drivers of electricity generation. Renewables are currently a very small contributor, while India and China are building large volumes of coal-fired electricity generators.
A desire to reduce the use of coal will reduce living standards, unless another cheap method is found. Renewables do not meet that criteria yet and do not look like doing so for a long time.

I'm a little confused: is your belief that because renewables are a small part of the equation (compared to coal, which has had centuries), they'll never be big, so they're not worth it?

BTW Hydro is "renewable" in terms of its environmental status.

 

[sarcophilus]

Thanks Runner
"To me at times it seems a green driven agenda, a cause to go along with anti nuclear to keep the faithful on task. Remember all the horror stories that will happen from the anti nuclear groups in the 60's, 70's etc by now we should be all glowing and mutants."

Yes and yes
I see no shame in it being a 'green agenda' if green is about reducing our footprint on a planet with finite resources. Being witness to plagues of locusts or mice should be enough warning to understand infinite expansion is not possible.
check out the abandoned areas of Japan and Chernobyl., What are the re-entry dates for theses areas. the levels of leukaemia in japan caused by consuming to much sashimi?
I have met enough middle class hippies to know there is money in tapping that well. I would be more than happy to see the right side of society exploiting this mob and make the switch over more affordable for all of us.

infinite growth is not possible on one small blue marble do you really want to function with the consciousness of a plague of locusts or do you want to function with a little foresight.

 

[Runner]

Fusion power is not a reality. The only thing that can be done with fusion is to make a bomb.

Saying that the anti-nuclear argument is purely driven by the Greens is absolute rubbish. Neither major party in Australia has any appetite to suggest nuclear power. That would suggest that all parties are against it. Until that changes it is ridiculous to say that it is down to the Greens that we don't pursue nuclear.

Your suggestions of fusion power and your other favourite that the real problem is methane from cattle are great examples of arguing to do nothing by deception. You are suggesting a method of power generation that is not even a reality let alone being economically feasible. Reducing methane emissions by the world stopping eating beef is a huge change for humanity. It is not likely to happen at all and there would be no public sentiment anywhere to promote it.

Meanwhile, you act like anyone having a desire to burn less coal is a fundamental attack on your way of life.

No one is trying to argue that all our electricity right away can be provided efficiently by solar and wind. No one is trying to argue that all the coal fired power stations should be turned off tomorrow.

May I suggest you read the article some of which is below and was mentioned above.

Fusion power would provide more energy for a given weight of fuel than any fuel-consuming energy source currently in use,[152] and the fuel itself (primarily deuterium) exists abundantly in the Earth's ocean: about 1 in 6500 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium.[153] Although this may seem a low proportion (about 0.015%), because nuclear fusion reactions are so much more energetic than chemical combustion and seawater is easier to access and more plentiful than fossil fuels, fusion could potentially supply the world's energy needs for millions of years etc
Despite being technically non-renewable, fusion power has many of the benefits of renewable energy sources (such as being a long-term energy supply and emitting no greenhouse gases) as well as some of the benefits of the resource-limited energy sources as hydrocarbons and nuclear fission (without reprocessing). Like these currently dominant energy sources, fusion could provide very high power-generation density and uninterrupted power delivery (due to the fact that it is not dependent on the weather, unlike wind and solar power).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

The outcry over the over nuclear when suggested at Jarvis Bay by mostly Green and other anti nuclear groups has prevented all governments from doing anything. The ALP was left with the joke of a 3 mines policy by the left of the party. Also our abundant coal reserves ment we have no need for political action unlike France with no coal to speak of, no oil, and as much hydro as possible so they are 80% nuclear hence low on the worlds pollution scale. Similar for the UK.
I just question the constant focus on CO2 and no other green house gases. If people knew that turning off coal had consequences such as little power, no jobs etc they may have a rethink the situation. I think you need to speak to Chritine Milne about coal not gone soon if they had their way it would go asap.

As for methane and cattle etc it just highlights again consequences.

 

[Runner]

Thanks Runner
"To me at times it seems a green driven agenda, a cause to go along with anti nuclear to keep the faithful on task. Remember all the horror stories that will happen from the anti nuclear groups in the 60's, 70's etc by now we should be all glowing and mutants."

Yes and yes
I see no shame in it being a 'green agenda' if green is about reducing our footprint on a planet with finite resources. Being witness to plagues of locusts or mice should be enough warning to understand infinite expansion is not possible.
check out the abandoned areas of Japan and Chernobyl., What are the re-entry dates for theses areas. the levels of leukaemia in japan caused by consuming to much sashimi?
I have met enough middle class hippies to know there is money in tapping that well. I would be more than happy to see the right side of society exploiting this mob and make the switch over more affordable for all of us.

infinite growth is not possible on one small blue marble do you really want to function with the consciousness of a plague of locusts or do you want to function with a little foresight.

Infinte growth is not possible without population control which is another area of controversy.

 

[formerflanker]

I'm a little confused: is your belief that because renewables are a small part of the equation (compared to coal, which has had centuries), they'll never be big, so they're not worth it?

BTW Hydro is "renewable" in terms of its environmental status.

Good point re hydro - I should have said "other renewables".
Renewables (especially wind factories) should not be funded by taxpayers while cheaper, efficient alternatives exist.

 

[boyo]

Shall we ignore the subsidies (taxpayer-funded) to the coal industry to produce the very same coal used in coal-fired power stations?

Cheap coal hasn't translated into lower prices for electricity consumers.

 

[formerflanker]

Shall we ignore the subsidies (taxpayer-funded) to the coal industry to produce the very same coal used in coal-fired power stations?

Cheap coal hasn't translated into lower prices for electricity consumers.

It has certainly resulted in electricity that is cheaper than solar power. Today's Australian quotes the Queensland Resources Council as saying "the QRC-commissioned review argues there is a great danger of the renewable energy industry producing low returns because most projects could not survive without inflated feed-in tariffs and government subsidies.
If governments withdrew the subsidies, companies went out of business and the renewable energy projects could become stranded assets.
Furthermore, renewable energy sources were expensive when compared with coal.
Coal-fired power stations being built now could last for 50 years whereas solar power stations had a lifespan of 25 years and could only produce electricity 50 per cent of the time."

 

[boyo]

You conveniently ignore solar-thermal.

 

[Pfitzy]

Good point re hydro - I should have said "other renewables".
Renewables (especially wind factories) should not be funded by taxpayers while cheaper, efficient alternatives exist.

Then Holden should not have built a single Commodore in the last 10 years or more.

 

[formerflanker]

A balanced and logical article by Steven E. Koonin (who was undersecretary for science in the US Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term) shows why we should not believe that “the science is settled”, is published in a recent Australian.

A key point he makes is “..I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is settled (or is a hoax) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress….”


He also says that climate has always changed and always will; that there is little doubt that humans are affecting the climate to some extent; and that climate science is not yet mature enough to understand the very difficult problems of predicting human influences on climate.

A fascinating read.

 

[sarcophilus]

can you provide a balance précis of what was written in his article please.
you will need to include the bits where it states things like

being undecided is no excuse for inaction

he also recognises that scientists are not there to decide the directions society must take or the risks it can bear

a foot in both camps throughout

it is a balanced and not committed piece. Ideologues on both side will find points to cheer and points to reject

If the science was decided there would be no need for continued investigation That too would save a lot of money better pumped into economic development

our problem is this ship has no life rafts and if they're ever launched we will be drinking a lot of piss before we get to the next safe harbour

 

[fatprop]

Shall we ignore the subsidies (taxpayer-funded) to the coal industry to produce the very same coal used in coal-fired power stations?

Cheap coal hasn't translated into lower prices for electricity consumers.

but it has for large consumers, it is, well was, one of our competitive advantages

consumers have been scammed by power companies playing the system and becoming infrastructure suppliers who sell a bit of power. (they get a guaranteed 10% on infrastructure investment)

 

[boyo]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-AK (Andrew Kellaway)-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10373478_10152735114025797_6685773630941365924_n.jpg?oh=db623e03029300a8f8fc33830397c2d3&oe=54C57069&__gda__=1421246486_0f26dc7989a2993e2284742bc799cb4e

 

[formerflanker]

It is interesting that the Rockefeller family have decided to divest itself of a substantial chunk of its oil-based investments to invest in clean energy.

Perhaps they have seen the writing on the wall.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund which announced its divestment from fossil fuels is quite different to the more widely known Rockefeller Foundation. The RBF is made up of the heirs to the Rockefeller fortune and is only an $800 million asset value investment fund. It has funded the global warming movement for the last 30 years, giving millions to groups who oppose fossil fuels. RBF’s visible investments in fossil fuel limited partnerships – both of them, Natural Gas Partners VIII and NGP Energy Technology Partners – were sold off in 2012 as dead weight, costing RBF a net capital loss of $49,000. At the same time, RBF also dumped its three biofuel investments at a loss over a million dollars.

The Rockefeller Foundation, with assets of $3.6-billion and annual expenditures of $180-million, is a much larger operation than the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. They have NOT announced they are divesting from fossil fuel investments.

I’m happy to share the source of this info if you wish.

 

[formerflanker]

"U.S. sees ‘slight cooling trend’ since 2005 – NOAA shows ‘the pause’ in the U.S. surface temperature record over nearly a decade​

U.S. cools from 2005 through 2014"​

​

Ref - The Climate Depot.

​

​

​

 

[sarcophilus]

Tell us about Marc Morano

 

[matty_k]

My favourite quote describing Morano is this one:

"unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...oat-smearer-marc-morano-global-warming-denie/

 

[boyo]

Tell us about Marc Morano

Isn't he the RG winger?

 

[formerflanker]

Tell us about Marc Morano

He's the bloke who has posted a graph from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing a slight cooling trend in the US from 2005 to now.
He also has evidence of no global warming for the last 17 years and 9 months - predating the 1998 El Nino.