Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?

[billybob]

Sorry, talking about oil, not drillers. Longerterm, you should do better, of course.

[Mallette]

billybob, my company has an interesting way of doing business that's worked nicely.  The company is 94 years old, so it has a lot of experience.  We build our own rigs and they are the best in the world for many things, shale especially.  The producers line up for three year contracts as we can only build them so fast.  Once signed, they are committed.  We are still building rigs here, and most are going straight to cold stack.  But the producer will still be paying the lease rate minus the labor for the crew.  If they don't use the rig for three years, it's ours.  When times get better, we have rigs ready to go. 

 

As to the crews, there is no way we can pay them with nothing for them to day.  The layoffs are in order of position and seniority.  Some Rig Managers wind up as drillers or even derrickmen.  Drillers may become derrickmen or motormen.  At least they have a job and we keep as much experience as possible so we are ready for the inevitable rebound.

 

Because of this, while it goes down, our stock doesn't take the beating that other drilling companies do.  We won't make much money this year, but we won't hemorrhage either. 

 

Dave

[babadono]

However, the premise is lunacy. And can be successfully argued by anyone. The premise is that we can reverse the predicted effect by changing behavior. Don't fear this, embrace it! It's pure insanity. Just start asking for explicit answers- What needs to change and by how much, and for whom? The answer is nothing but stuttering. There is no answer because there's no control over consumption.

 Yea the only thing most of these people can come up with is we need to pay a "carbon tax" or whatever they want to call it today so they can waste more money. Why, because "we"(the human race) are destroying the world and dadgumit we need to pay. What a bunch of mularky. The temperature of the earth has never been stable. It goes up, jungles cover the earth (that's where oil and gas came from) and it goes down, ice covers the earth. Thinking man causes this and/or can stop it is some people getting too big for their britches.

End Rant

[geoffcb]

 Yea the only thing most of these people can come up with is we need to pay a "carbon tax" or whatever they want to call it today so they can waste more money. Why, because "we"(the human race) are destroying the world and dadgumit we need to pay. What a bunch of mularky. The temperature of the earth has never been stable. It goes up, jungles cover the earth (that's where oil and gas came from) and it goes down, ice covers the earth. Thinking man causes this and/or can stop it is some people getting too big for their britches.

End Rant

 

 

I believe that thinking humans don't have an impact is more dangerous than thinking there is no climate change. Myself (and most of the Forum?) are not climate scientists, so we can offer an opinion. But that's all it is, an opinion. I've studied Physics and worked for a weather service in the past, but that still does not qualify me. We trust science and engineering in our audio pursuits, so why not at least examine the evidence critically? Of course there are natural long-term variations in climate, but behind all the white noise of variation, there is a measurable upward trend in temperature. It doesn't affect the globe equally, and some areas have even become cooler. But there is more than general consensus that global warming and the associated climate change is real.

 

Australia is particularly hard hit, as many of our settlements and agriculture exist in marginal land, and they are now being affected severely. We have had consistently warmer years this century, and heat and drought records are being broken more and more. Places in outback Queensland have had months of 40C plus temperatures (104F) - yes, it gets hot there, but this is just crazy! One might argue this is weather, rather than climate, and yes, that's correct. But scientists don't make this up. They report data, and analyse it to the best of their ability. It is politicians and those with vested interests who embellish the story to suit their agenda! And unfortunately it is widely believed that this is just nature; it'll be ok in the long run; it'll go away.

 

I only wish we were wrong, and that climate change would just go away, but can we take the chance? What if there was a tipping point of no return?

 

Anyhow, back to the speakers!

 

Geoff

[Fish]

The King says Climate change is the real deal issue, terrorist are just " news" hype. So...no, not coming to and end.

[billybob]

billybob, my company has an interesting way of doing business that's worked nicely.  The company is 94 years old, so it has a lot of experience.  We build our own rigs and they are the best in the world for many things, shale especially.  The producers line up for three year contracts as we can only build them so fast.  Once signed, they are committed.  We are still building rigs here, and most are going straight to cold stack.  But the producer will still be paying the lease rate minus the labor for the crew.  If they don't use the rig for three years, it's ours.  When times get better, we have rigs ready to go. 

 

As to the crews, there is no way we can pay them with nothing for them to day.  The layoffs are in order of position and seniority.  Some Rig Managers wind up as drillers or even derrickmen.  Drillers may become derrickmen or motormen.  At least they have a job and we keep as much experience as possible so we are ready for the inevitable rebound.

 

Because of this, while it goes down, our stock doesn't take the beating that other drilling companies do.  We won't make much money this year, but we won't hemorrhage either. 

 

Dave

First of all, sorry for posting on this thread, meant to post on the other by OP. Then saw I had a reply here so I reposted same here again after deleting briefly.

Went to pickup Nancy while thinking, your company was not doing shale drilling. Now I see from your reply, that your company builds platforms for shale drillers, if read correctly. The reply now is,  I think that the shale drillers will continue to prosper after, to use your words," the inevitable rebound. "

Shorterm indications are that it is bottoming due to some union strike talk related to workers at some refineries. If this trend is a trend then and holds, then your clients profits should start increasing some, in the nearterm.

Thinking the companies doing the shale drilling will have enough profit from before this decrease in price per barrel. to ride this out a short while longer. If I am even correct here.

Now, this must be sounding by now that I am contradicting a previous post I made today about the Saudi's and US fracking. They may benefit from causing harm to some of the drillers doing the fracking, but in order to completely stop, or bankrupt their startup companies, I cannot see happening, what with the interest of the technology and recent past profit.

Thanks for giving me more info, that I would have asked for. I understand your position better now. If not, and OP or you are so inclined, please continue, as I have not been focusing on the oil industry, as a whole lately.

Thanks!

Edited February 9, 2015 by billybob

[babadono]

Global warming--- OK maybe. Mankind causing it or can do anything about it. Nope.

[billybob]

 

If I believed in conspiracy theories

 

You mean you don't?

 

Lol, when the mass media picks up the Saudi,US vs Russia,Iran energy strategy theory I will call it one.

Hope it wasn't a secret.

[JJkizak]

As I said before one super volcano popping off will put us into the next ice age. So that all we have to do is set off a couple of nukes in Yellowstone and walllah! So Humans can correct global warming. Yellowstone is 40,000 years overdue with a huge 5 mile deep plasma building up every day. And it has about a 160 mile wide hole where the stuff comes out. 

JJK

Edited February 10, 2015 by JJKIZAK

[Woofers and Tweeters]

It is indisputable that what humans do on Earth will have no lasting impact on the planet. What’s thoughtless is the mindset that there is no need to try to make conditions better for ourselves while we’re here. Not caring, or the viewpoint that we have no control of ourselves, is similar to someone who has a poor diet, smokes, doesn't exercise and plays Russian roulette. Who supports a person who says ‘what’s the use, in the end we all die?’

 

We do have some control. Overpopulating and trying to compensate our conditions with windmills and such while ignoring the pink elephant at the table is just more foolishness. We can't control asteroids or volcanos but we can control other things. 

[Jeff Matthews]

 

It is indisputable that what humans do on Earth will have no lasting impact on the planet. What’s thoughtless is the mindset that there is no need to try to make conditions better for ourselves while we’re here. Not caring, or the viewpoint that we have no control of ourselves, is similar to someone who has a poor diet, smokes, doesn't exercise and plays Russian roulette. Who supports a person who says ‘what’s the use, in the end we all die?’

We do have some control. Overpopulating and trying to compensate our conditions with windmills and such while ignoring the pink elephant at the table is just more foolishness. We can't control asteroids or volcanos but we can control other things.

What's over populating?

 

Avocados, I think.  I got them 3 for a dollar the other day.

[Mallette]

Depends on what you mean by "platforms," billybob.  We are 90 percent domestic land.  Our focus is land rigs, and most of that is shale. 

 

Dave

[billybob]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Travis In Austin]

 

I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him I am most haapy to look whst he rvgas got,

 

Many of us are skeptical when confronted with seeing reasonable questions hooted down with derision, often by non-scientists.  Solid scientific evidence is often so clear and plain that reasonable questions simply aren't possible.   That is very true, but that hasn't stopped one group or another from trying to do so.  When I was growing up there was this thing called the Tobacco Institute.  Funded by big tobacco to fight the increasing number of studies linking smoking and lung cancer.  They then expanded to try and prove that nicotine isn't addictive, and finely, that second hand smoke isn't harmful.  The Tobacco Institute is extinct, it was killed off as part of the Tobacco Settlement.  "Evolution is just a theory."  Of course, the people advancing that argument didn't understand that scientists use the word theory in a completely different sense.  Solid scientific evidence, is simply the conclusions derived from observations, and subject to peer (i.e., other scientists) review so that they can see if the observations are repeatable and the conclusions reasonable.

 

This isn't one of them.  It depends on what you mean by "one."  If you mean, what the effects of global warming may be, I certainly agree with you, those are the important reasonable questions and are the ones being pursued.  If you mean that there are reasonable questions about global warming, mainstream science have left those with those conclusions behind.  That global warming has occurred and is, at least in part, man made, is what solid scientific evidence has revealed.  There are no reasonable SCIENTIFIC questions about that.  

 

The original post asked the question is the "hype" about global warming over, referring to an article in a British newspaper by a global warming skeptic form the UK, who has been debunked.  I took it from his post he meant the "hype" was the science, or that the will the debate go away.  As you know, "hype" doesn't have any place in science, it isn't in peer reviewed articles to begin with.  Is the "hype" over with respect to think tanks and pundits putting their spin on it, not by a long shot.  Big oil has set up new Tobacco Institute like foundations and contributed over 500 million to them to try and say that it either:  1) doesn't exist (they have acknowledged they lost that one; 2) even if it does exist you cannot prove it is causing any real harm; and 3) if it is causing harm it is not man made.  

 

People will say there is debate about one aspect or another and quote a scientific study which is typically a "report," not a study or peer reviewed article, that is typically from one of these "Institutes."  For example, the Heartland Institute.  It never ceases to amaze me that giant industry, when faced with good solid scientific evidence,  thinks that American's are stupid that it can react by trying to fund that evidence under the carpet.   

 

 

 

That the climate changes over time, often rapidly, is clearly evident in the historic and geologic record.  Such changes are responsible for massive impacts on human history, what tiny amount of it there is.  This one is no different except suddenly there is some mechanism in society that has a strong belief that the planet shouldn't do this and if it's happening it's humanities price for its sins.  Not me, I don't think religion has anything to do with it.  What the effects will be remain to be seen.  I don't think the leaders in the scientific fields involved, at least from what I have read, indicate we are going to turn into Venus anytime soon.  I have seen scientists discuss that venus has an atmosphere that is 96% CO2 and then seen non-scientists turn that into what is being suggested by global warming science.  Even if you take heat out of the effects of fossil fuel burning, CO2 build up has caused the oceans to become 30% more acidic (in the pH sense) from fossil fuel emissions.  Even if there was no global warming, that is a problem that cannot continue on indefinitely.  

 

The odds are against it.  Against what?  Even if it is the case it remains a natural phenomenon unless you believe we are supernatural beings.  Warming due to CO2, that is at least in part due to human activity is what the science says, the Institutes of big oil have are trying snuff that out like a cigarette about 10 years ago, they have moved on to debating what amount is man made, and what the effects will be.  Science says the warming is man made, it is not natural.  The drop in pH of the oceans is not natural.  Further, the effects are almost perfectly balanced in upside and downside...which is pretty much natures way.  Some areas get warmer and wetter, others drier.  The peer reviewed articles that comprise the body of scientific literature in this area have taken into account the natural cycles and variations and have concluded that the warming is outside of the those variations, that is, even factoring in historical warming and cooling periods, there is a net rise.  So even in cooling periods, we are warmer then in previous cooling periods.   

 

In Britain, crops are being cultivated again that haven't been possible in a thousand years.  I am sure that is true.  Is that because it is warmer there?  Or are they using GMO crops that are impervious to cold?  That is the latest line by the big oil institutes by the way, "even if global warming exists, it is beneficial."  Cigarette companies used to say the same thing about smoking.  

 

It's better for the "news cycle" to beat the drum of doom than to discuss the upside.  That is my real problem in all of this I guess.  What is news.  We cannot rely on the "news" to give us a fair and balanced approach on any issue, even one that should be devoid of politics like science.  You have to look behind every report, every "expert" invited on the program to discuss the meaning of this study or that study.  Big oil Institutes provide "experts" to discuss this report, or that commissions findings and they have never been a scientist that I have seen.  They are typically a lawyer or lobbyist employed by "the institute."  That is what gets me emotional, how people can be fooled by the new Tobacco Institutes after knowing what it is they do, and why they do it.  

 

What remains a mystery to me is how people develop such emotions over it.  Last time I looked out this morning the sun was rising on a beautiful day with no sign that human extinction is any more likely today than yesterday. 

 

They shouldn't get emotional, they should check things out for themselves, see who is advancing the position, is there a bias, and look for a credible source for a counter-point, and draw their own conclusions.  

 

You can go to NOAA, the NASA site previously mentioned.  If you believe NASA and NOAA are in a conspiracy against big american oil, there are a lot of other sources that are not funded by big oil.

 

It was a beautiful day here today also, but the problem is that when it comes to global ecosystems, changes are very slow. That fact that you wake up and everything looks the same is why this is so difficult for people to comprehend, and so easy for big business to brush away.  I am sure that 200 years ago when people were burning coal every day to stay warm and cook they woke up and said something similar.  When coal got used to fuel the industrial revolution and helped solidify us into a great nation, I am sure that people woke up every day and went about their business.  When technology raged forward and we got electricity across this great nation, fueled by coal power plants I am sure people work up even happier then before they had electricity.  Then one day a scientist somewhere discovered elevated concentrations in fish, and another scientist discovered it was making people sick, and another one discovered that the source of the elevated mercury in fish was from coal, and then another discovered that mercury causes birth defects.  Coal producers, steel companies and other business that relied upon coal were able to initially question the science, and when the science couldn't be ignored, the Clean Air Act was passed, the Clean Water Act and the creation of the EPA.  I am sure that fishermen who were wiped out my mercury scare, coal miners who lost their jobs, and a lot of others at some point woke up one day, saw that the sun was shining and said "this day sucks."  There are a lot of things you can pass the buck on to the next generation, unfortunately we have learned the hard way that the environment isn't one of them.  The fact that it only took 100 years to pollute an entire world ocean should be quite scary.  The US spends more on global warming research than border security.  It is a priority, as well as it should be.  

 

The last thing I will say is to try and bring this more to home, and everyday life.  In May, 2011, In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) (these are the people who study our ability to grown food for ourselves in the United States) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:

 

 

A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.

Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.

Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.

As between Exxon/Mobil and food production capacity, I think I will err on the side of caution and do what little I can to try and get this under control.  I have yet to see one study to suggest that reducing CO2 output would have a negative impact.

 

 

 

Dave

 

[Travis In Austin]

 

 

This is happening now, not 30 rears from now, in significant amouts in some areas.

I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him I am most haapy to look whst he rvgas got,

Travis

 

 

 

Travis,

I agree with the substance of your post.

It can only be assumed that passion while typing explains the numerous typos, my favorite being, ". . . 30 rears from now . . ." What do the Kardashians have to do with global warning?

My posts are frequently found to be riddled with typos when I re-read them. That prompts a removal of the mittens and editing.

Solving global warming will only stall, briefly, the population crisis. The developed world's population is under control. The developing world's population is out of control. Until we recognize that there is only one world, and that we're all in this together, population growth will accelerate with catastrophic consequences. I'm not optimistic.

 

That will teach me to try and type on a tablet, my fat thumbs and small screen make it a slow learning process.

 

I went and tried to edit it back into something comprehensible.

 

Travis

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him I am most haapy to look whst he rvgas got,

 

Many of us are skeptical when confronted with seeing reasonable questions hooted down with derision, often by non-scientists.  Solid scientific evidence is often so clear and plain that reasonable questions simply aren't possible.   That is very true, but that hasn't stopped one group or another from trying to do so.  When I was growing up there was this thing called the Tobacco Institute.  Funded by big tobacco to fight the increasing number of studies linking smoking and lung cancer.  They then expanded to try and prove that nicotine isn't addictive, and finely, that second hand smoke isn't harmful.  The Tobacco Institute is extinct, it was killed off as part of the Tobacco Settlement.  "Evolution is just a theory."  Of course, the people advancing that argument didn't understand that scientists use the word theory in a completely different sense.  Solid scientific evidence, is simply the conclusions derived from observations, and subject to peer (i.e., other scientists) review so that they can see if the observations are repeatable and the conclusions reasonable.

 

This isn't one of them.  It depends on what you mean by "one."  If you mean, what the effects of global warming may be, I certainly agree with you, those are the important reasonable questions and are the ones being pursued.  If you mean that there are reasonable questions about global warming, mainstream science have left those with those conclusions behind.  That global warming has occurred and is, at least in part, man made, is what solid scientific evidence has revealed.  There are no reasonable SCIENTIFIC questions about that.  

 

The original post asked the question is the "hype" about global warming over, referring to an article in a British newspaper by a global warming skeptic form the UK, who has been debunked.  I took it from his post he meant the "hype" was the science, or that the will the debate go away.  As you know, "hype" doesn't have any place in science, it isn't in peer reviewed articles to begin with.  Is the "hype" over with respect to think tanks and pundits putting their spin on it, not by a long shot.  Big oil has set up new Tobacco Institute like foundations and contributed over 500 million to them to try and say that it either:  1) doesn't exist (they have acknowledged they lost that one; 2) even if it does exist you cannot prove it is causing any real harm; and 3) if it is causing harm it is not man made.  

 

People will say there is debate about one aspect or another and quote a scientific study which is typically a "report," not a study or peer reviewed article, that is typically from one of these "Institutes."  For example, the Heartland Institute.  It never ceases to amaze me that giant industry, when faced with good solid scientific evidence,  thinks that American's are stupid that it can react by trying to fund that evidence under the carpet.   

 

 

 

That the climate changes over time, often rapidly, is clearly evident in the historic and geologic record.  Such changes are responsible for massive impacts on human history, what tiny amount of it there is.  This one is no different except suddenly there is some mechanism in society that has a strong belief that the planet shouldn't do this and if it's happening it's humanities price for its sins.  Not me, I don't think religion has anything to do with it.  What the effects will be remain to be seen.  I don't think the leaders in the scientific fields involved, at least from what I have read, indicate we are going to turn into Venus anytime soon.  I have seen scientists discuss that venus has an atmosphere that is 96% CO2 and then seen non-scientists turn that into what is being suggested by global warming science.  Even if you take heat out of the effects of fossil fuel burning, CO2 build up has caused the oceans to become 30% more acidic (in the pH sense) from fossil fuel emissions.  Even if there was no global warming, that is a problem that cannot continue on indefinitely.  

 

The odds are against it.  Against what?  Even if it is the case it remains a natural phenomenon unless you believe we are supernatural beings.  Warming due to CO2, that is at least in part due to human activity is what the science says, the Institutes of big oil have are trying snuff that out like a cigarette about 10 years ago, they have moved on to debating what amount is man made, and what the effects will be.  Science says the warming is man made, it is not natural.  The drop in pH of the oceans is not natural.  Further, the effects are almost perfectly balanced in upside and downside...which is pretty much natures way.  Some areas get warmer and wetter, others drier.  The peer reviewed articles that comprise the body of scientific literature in this area have taken into account the natural cycles and variations and have concluded that the warming is outside of the those variations, that is, even factoring in historical warming and cooling periods, there is a net rise.  So even in cooling periods, we are warmer then in previous cooling periods.   

 

In Britain, crops are being cultivated again that haven't been possible in a thousand years.  I am sure that is true.  Is that because it is warmer there?  Or are they using GMO crops that are impervious to cold?  That is the latest line by the big oil institutes by the way, "even if global warming exists, it is beneficial."  Cigarette companies used to say the same thing about smoking.  

 

It's better for the "news cycle" to beat the drum of doom than to discuss the upside.  That is my real problem in all of this I guess.  What is news.  We cannot rely on the "news" to give us a fair and balanced approach on any issue, even one that should be devoid of politics like science.  You have to look behind every report, every "expert" invited on the program to discuss the meaning of this study or that study.  Big oil Institutes provide "experts" to discuss this report, or that commissions findings and they have never been a scientist that I have seen.  They are typically a lawyer or lobbyist employed by "the institute."  That is what gets me emotional, how people can be fooled by the new Tobacco Institutes after knowing what it is they do, and why they do it.  

 

What remains a mystery to me is how people develop such emotions over it.  Last time I looked out this morning the sun was rising on a beautiful day with no sign that human extinction is any more likely today than yesterday. 

 

They shouldn't get emotional, they should check things out for themselves, see who is advancing the position, is there a bias, and look for a credible source for a counter-point, and draw their own conclusions.  

 

You can go to NOAA, the NASA site previously mentioned.  If you believe NASA and NOAA are in a conspiracy against big american oil, there are a lot of other sources that are not funded by big oil.

 

It was a beautiful day here today also, but the problem is that when it comes to global ecosystems, changes are very slow. That fact that you wake up and everything looks the same is why this is so difficult for people to comprehend, and so easy for big business to brush away.  I am sure that 200 years ago when people were burning coal every day to stay warm and cook they woke up and said something similar.  When coal got used to fuel the industrial revolution and helped solidify us into a great nation, I am sure that people woke up every day and went about their business.  When technology raged forward and we got electricity across this great nation, fueled by coal power plants I am sure people work up even happier then before they had electricity.  Then one day a scientist somewhere discovered elevated concentrations in fish, and another scientist discovered it was making people sick, and another one discovered that the source of the elevated mercury in fish was from coal, and then another discovered that mercury causes birth defects.  Coal producers, steel companies and other business that relied upon coal were able to initially question the science, and when the science couldn't be ignored, the Clean Air Act was passed, the Clean Water Act and the creation of the EPA.  I am sure that fishermen who were wiped out my mercury scare, coal miners who lost their jobs, and a lot of others at some point woke up one day, saw that the sun was shining and said "this day sucks."  There are a lot of things you can pass the buck on to the next generation, unfortunately we have learned the hard way that the environment isn't one of them.  The fact that it only took 100 years to pollute an entire world ocean should be quite scary.  The US spends more on global warming research than border security.  It is a priority, as well as it should be.  

 

The last thing I will say is to try and bring this more to home, and everyday life.  In May, 2011, In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) (these are the people who study our ability to grown food for ourselves in the United States) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:

 

 

A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.

Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.

Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.

As between Exxon/Mobil and food production capacity, I think I will err on the side of caution and do what little I can to try and get this under control.  I have yet to see one study to suggest that reducing CO2 output would have a negative impact.

 

 

 

Dave

 

 

 

Yes, we can look at motives.

 

1.  Big, dirty industry wants us to believe there is no anthropological global warming.

2.  Climatologists agree AGW is serious issue that can shake the foundations of our planet.  They want subsidies to study it and prove it.  Profiteers want to manage brokerage houses designed to trade on emission allotments.  

 

Who do you believe?  That's the question.  Seems you align with those greedy climatologists and profiteers.

 

The answer, naturally, is unscientific.  All it will derive from is the lenses through which you view politics.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[mungkiman]

It's not all politics.

 

[Mallette]

Back to the OP...talking with the PAW out on this beautiful evening out on the patio on the Gulf, it occurred to me that if reducing carbon emissions is suddenly so critical, it's not even that hard.

 

1. Fission plants.  We know how to build them and they are carbon neutral.  Sure, many fear meltdown, Chernobyl, and Fukoshima.  OTOH, if the alternative is even thousands dying which even Chernobyl didn't produce, as opposed to planetary survival...why are we just being told we must pay a tax and deal with it?

 

2. Solar is more expensive, but the technology is there and, again, if the alternative really is the destruction of civilization as we know it why isn't it the plan?

 

3.  Fusion has been 30 years in the future since the 50s, largely because almost no money is spent on it.  It's the perfectly clean source of infinite power.  So why don't we throw a Manhattan plan to make it happen in ten years or so?

 

The above are perfectly reasonable science based alternatives to shutting down economic growth or simply taxing trashing the environment. 

 

Regardless of the merits or not of human blame for rapid climate change, I raise the question:  Why not the above available and clear alternatives to continuing to burn coal and simply taxing the non-1%?

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

It is indisputable that what humans do on Earth will have no lasting impact on the planet. What’s thoughtless is the mindset that there is no need to try to make conditions better for ourselves while we’re here. Not caring, or the viewpoint that we have no control of ourselves, is similar to someone who has a poor diet, smokes, doesn't exercise and plays Russian roulette. Who supports a person who says ‘what’s the use, in the end we all die?’

 

We do have some control. Overpopulating and trying to compensate our conditions with windmills and such while ignoring the pink elephant at the table is just more foolishness. We can't control asteroids or volcanos but we can control other things. 

 

Well I guess "long lasting" is certainly relative, it only took us 150 years to pollute the entire ocean system with mercury (granted, there wasn't any way to know that burning coal in order to eat and survive could possibly build up to the point that it became toxic in fish, but it is still there in significant levels 50 years after we had conclusive proof of it.  

 

The mercury is still in fish at the top of the food chain in levels that limited portions are recommended, and it is strongly recommended that women avoid most fish.  I guess it will eventually work itself out over time.  To me, fifty years is "long term," but most things related to the Earth are looked at in terms of geologic time, eons.

 

I do agree, wholeheartedly, with your sentiment in trying to to improve the human condition while we are here.

[Travis In Austin]

Travis,

Do you use the Google Keyboard with "swipe type?"

If not, try it. I've used it for months now with good success. Yes, if you get careless it will guess a wrong word, but with practice it is awesome.

No, it is a Samsung Note3 or something.  I think there might be an option to switch to swipe type, I will give it a try.  

 

WIth my laptop or pc I use Dragon dictation software, which is my everything I "write" tend to be long winded.  With that you have to go back and carefully check on syntax, verb agreement, and other grammatical things which I discover typically after I have made a post.

 

I will try swipe and see if that is better.