Energy, Food, Population and Climate

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:51 AM GMT on April 09, 2014

Share this Blog
27
+

Energy, Food, Population and Climate


I was reading this article, Green Energy Draws Investment Worldwide, which reports on the United Nations' Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investments 2014. The article documents that global investments in renewable energy dropped in 2013, but also notes that China now exceeds Europe in renewable energy investments. Part of the reason for reduced investment in renewable energy was due to the declining price of solar energy. Another reason is unstable energy policy. In the U.S., for instance, the investment in wind energy jumps up and down based on incentives such as tax credits. The amount of energy produced by renewables continues to increase from year to year. If we obtained this energy from fossil fuels, there would be approximately 20% more carbon dioxide emissions.

Even with accounting that carbon dioxide emissions are only 80% of what they might be, the total global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to increase every year. Here is a figure put together from reports from the International Energy Agency.





Figure 1: World Primary Energy Supply in 1973 and 2003. From International Energy Agency.

In 1973 oil provided 45.0 % of the world’s energy and in 2003 the number is 34.4%. Natural gas provided 16.2% in 1973 and 21.2% in 2003. Coal was 24.8% in 1973 and 24.4% in 2003. If I add correctly in 1973 fossil fuels provided 86% of the world’s energy and in 2003 fossil fuels provided 80% of our energy. The big difference between 1973 and 2003 was the increase in nuclear.

The emissions continue to increase because the total amount of energy generated increased. Mtoe is Megatons oil equivalent, and that number went from about 6,000 to 10600 in 30 years. In that 30-year period there was about a 75% increase in total energy production.

Figure 2 shows in the top part of the figure the same type of information as in the above figure, but for 2011. Total energy production in 2011 was about 13,113 Megaton oil equivalent. In 2011, the increase in energy production is approximately 120% compared to 1973. Compared to 2003, the 2011 energy production is about 25% higher.



Figure 2: World Primary Energy Supply in 2011, top. From International Energy Agency. Total energy production in 2011 was about 13,113 Megaton oil equivalent. The bottom part of the figure is the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions from each energy type.

When we look at the percentage of energy production, the energy coming from non-fossil fuel sources is 18%. Percentage wise, the amount that might be accounted to renewables has actually decreased. Therefore, we do have less carbon dioxide emissions than might be the case, but our energy use increases and our reliance on fossil fuels remains in many ways the same. The amount of energy produced by non-fossil fuels today would have been over 40% of the world’s energy use in 1973.

In terms of share of energy production, coal has increased at the expense of both oil and non-fossil fuels. If you look at the bottom part of the figure, the high amount of carbon dioxide emissions from coal shows that coal is especially bad for the climate.

In the past decade, globally, coal has grown more than either renewables or natural gas. This has fueled, especially, the economies of India and China, leading to a significant rise in standard of living. This shows up as large changes in, for example, hunger statistics. The tie between economic success, energy use and carbon dioxide becomes more clear. Despite amazing growth in the use of renewables, which has actually decreased carbon dioxide emissions in Europe, the total growth in energy production overwhelms this decrease. This makes the current continued increase in carbon dioxide emissions more staggering – it comes in the presence of real reductions in emissions from renewables.

The increase in energy production improves economies. Bringing economic development to a larger percentage of the world’s population, while the population continues to grow, assures decades more of very high emissions. If we then make the reach that economic growth and standard of living are accompanied by consumption of more meat, which has always been the case, we see an amplifying impact on emissions coming from agriculture.

We are therefore even in the best of cases committed to further increases in carbon dioxide emissions, as well as emissions of other greenhouse gases. The ultimate way to limit warming is to reduce emissions, which requires energy sources and food supplies that do not emit greenhouse gases. At this point we are not even offsetting the increase of carbon dioxide emissions by our adoption of renewables. It is interesting to note that China, now the world’s largest emitter, is also the world’s largest investor in renewable energy. Also noteworthy, is that China has driven down the price of solar energy. This places China in not only a potential technological advantage, but is also building policy advantage, as China is on a path that might displace coal’s role in energy production.

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 808 - 758

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

808. Birthmark
11:25 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
Quoting 796. RTSplayer:



Yah, cuz you know, children should clearly be punished because of their parent's irresponsibility.

It's pretty tough to punish unconceived children.


Quoting 796. RTSplayer:
Let's start by taxing private jets and yachts, as well as national chain Weather and News anchor's vans from wasting all that fuel driving around, when there are perfectly good local reporters on the scene anyway.

That's mostly a "feel good" proposal, though since it helps I have no strong objection.

Quoting 796. RTSplayer:
We can also freeze assets and recoup tax losses from expatriated billionaires, like former Facebook founders, who used U.S. funded infrastructure and educations to earn their money, and then left without paying taxes...

If they make money in the U.S., from anything in the U.S., then they should pay taxes in the U.S., and whether it's $10 or $10 Billion per year...

Can't argue with that.

Quoting 796. RTSplayer:
Any expatriated company should have their patents revoked and auctioned to a loyal company. The congress has the power to do this, according to the constitution, since patents are supposed to be for limited time.

I like this as things are now. It might be unnecessary if we renegotiate trade treaties wisely. (Hey, it could happen!)


Quoting 796. RTSplayer:
If you really want to fix social and environmental problems, you first have to fix the system of government we have, so that it would function on some form of rationality...

Publicly funded political campaigns would be a good start. So would impeaching those corrupt US Supreme Court Justices who think that money is speech and corporations are people.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
807. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:09 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
805. JohnLonergan
1:12 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
Quoting 803. Naga5000:



Yawn. Open your eyes.


Since he's living on the public dole with those rice subsidies, I want to see his emails, they're our tax dollars.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
804. BaltimoreBrian
1:08 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
Quoting yoboi:


The list is growing daily NAGA.....If they can't find the missing heat many more will be jumping off the sinking ship.....
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8714
803. Naga5000
12:57 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
Quoting 800. yoboi:



The list is growing daily NAGA.....If they can't find the missing heat many more will be jumping off the sinking ship.....


Yawn. Open your eyes.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3625
802. riverat544
12:40 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
Quoting 800. yoboi:



The list is growing daily NAGA.....If they can't find the missing heat many more will be jumping off the sinking ship.....

Before the Argo floats were deployed there was missing heat, now not so much.
Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 100
801. riverat544
12:38 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
Quoting 797. yoboi:


Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth‘s magnetic field – “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…"

Which is completely beside the point since no one is arguing that the heat produced by human burning fossil fuels is the cause of the warming.
Member Since: March 29, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 100
800. yoboi
12:01 AM GMT on April 21, 2014
Quoting 799. Naga5000:
All those dissenting scientists sure haven't published anything that shows their claims are accurate. In fact, if they have published anything it is usually in support of AGW. Funny how that works. I would tell you to stay off those conspiracy blogs Yoboi, but you won't listen anyways.


The list is growing daily NAGA.....If they can't find the missing heat many more will be jumping off the sinking ship.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
799. Naga5000
11:32 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
All those dissenting scientists sure haven't published anything that shows their claims are accurate. In fact, if they have published anything it is usually in support of AGW. Funny how that works. I would tell you to stay off those conspiracy blogs Yoboi, but you won't listen anyways.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3625
798. barbamz
10:37 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
A bit off topic, but as the pending shortage of Avocados in the US is related to Climate Change, I pass this recepy I just found by chance (and happy Easter BTW):

The Genius Way to Make Guacamole WITHOUT Avocado
Because you can't let the national avocado shortage come between you and your favorite dip.
Published: March 21, 2014 | By Anjali Shah
Avocado is pretty much the star of traditional guacamole—the creamy, delicious dip full of healthy fats that's a staple at most Mexican restaurants. But if you've ever made your own, you know that avocados can get pretty pricey at the supermarket. And unfortunately, a recent drought in California is leading to a national avocado shortage, which means it'll be even harder to find them at a reasonable price.
The good news? You don't need avocados to make a delicious dip full of nutritional goodness—seriously! Check out this recipe for Edamame "Guacamole" that's just as creamy, rich and healthy as the original. Bonus: This version packs about half the calories and three times the protein as regular guac! ...


Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 58 Comments: 6261
797. yoboi
10:15 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe, including many former IPCC scientists, have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) .

What do some of them say?


Dr Robert Austin, Princeton Physicist – “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple”
IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita – “Michael Mann and Phil Jones should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,”
IPCC lead author Richard Tol – lamented that the IPCC had been captured and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publically called for the suspension of the IPCC Process in 2010.
UN scientist Professor Will Alexander – “The IPCC is a worthless carcass…Pachauri is in disgrace…fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” He claims there is “no scientifically believable evidence that human activities can influence global climate”, “climate change adherents show a complete lack of numeracy skills and logical deductions” and that there has been “deliberate manipulation of climate change science to suit political objectives”.
Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
IPCC lead author Tom Tripp – “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
NASA scientist Dr Leonard Weinstein – “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin – “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself”
Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University – “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”
Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth‘s magnetic field – “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”
Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino – “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”
Research Chemist William C. Gilbert – ““I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what “science‟ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”
Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University – “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”
Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named one of the “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine – “Those who call themselves “Green planet advocates‟ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behaviour supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet”
Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid – “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”



Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
796. RTSplayer
8:11 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 793. Birthmark:


Ten or twenty years ago I whole-heartedly would have agreed with the more subtle approach. I think we're out of time and the more direct approach is needed.


Yah, cuz you know, children should clearly be punished because of their parent's irresponsibility.


Let's start by taxing private jets and yachts, as well as national chain Weather and News anchor's vans from wasting all that fuel driving around, when there are perfectly good local reporters on the scene anyway.

We can also freeze assets and recoup tax losses from expatriated billionaires, like former Facebook founders, who used U.S. funded infrastructure and educations to earn their money, and then left without paying taxes...

If they make money in the U.S., from anything in the U.S., then they should pay taxes in the U.S., and whether it's $10 or $10 Billion per year...

Any expatriated company should have their patents revoked and auctioned to a loyal company. The congress has the power to do this, according to the constitution, since patents are supposed to be for limited time.


If you really want to fix social and environmental problems, you first have to fix the system of government we have, so that it would function on some form of rationality...
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
795. AlwaysThinkin
7:41 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 793. Birthmark:


Ten or twenty years ago I whole-heartedly would have agreed with the more subtle approach. I think we're out of time and the more direct approach is needed.



I fear you may be right.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
794. Patrap
7:20 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 793. Birthmark:


Ten or twenty years ago I whole-heartedly would have agreed with the more subtle approach. I think we're out of time and the more direct approach is needed.


Yes, Da, Comrade..

Good Advice.

Now, lets take off our shirts and go Horseback riding thru the Gas Pipelines, no?

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
793. Birthmark
7:15 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 789. AlwaysThinkin:



I'd have to say I agree with some of this, but I don't think we need to limit the number of children being born with higher taxes on those that have more children necessarily. Many nations without such schemes have reduced high fertility rates without heavy coercion. Most of the time empowerment of women is a much better way of encouraging declining fertility rates as that in many cases women enjoy having an education and a career outside of the home as opposed to them having several children because the church or social norms dictate people have more children.

Edit: Also putting real resources into stopping teen pregnancy would do a world of good regarding this too (something I would guess even Tramp would agree with). And according to a recent study having teens watch '16 and pregnant' would help them to understand that being 16 and pregnant really, really sucks.

Ten or twenty years ago I whole-heartedly would have agreed with the more subtle approach. I think we're out of time and the more direct approach is needed.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
792. Patrap
7:15 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 791. Birthmark:

Today's Doonesbury is hilarious.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
791. Birthmark
7:13 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Today's Doonesbury is hilarious.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
790. Patrap
7:11 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 783. yoboi:




Just like the 75 out of 77 scientist = the 97% consensus......


Double Dutch Derp'







Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
789. AlwaysThinkin
6:38 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 758. Birthmark:


I looked it up on the interwebz. Nowhere can I find any reference to you being the arbiter of what's realistic, though I did find some posts by you that seem to indicate the precise opposite.

For instance, I never said "limit us to only one child." However, I did say tax the h-e-double hockey sticks (see what I did there) out of people who have more than one living child, excluding those already with more than one.

To that I would add, that mass-transit be mandated by the Federal government. Eventually, all private, automobiles should be prohibited from large cities.

Further all subsidies, tax-credits, and any other breaks to fossil fuel companies should be phased out. Exploration and drilling should be phased out. Exporting fossil fuels should be phased out.

A new electric infrastructure should be phased in where property owners produce their own electricity through renewable sources. Electrical companies should be tasked with maintaining the grid and power lines...and nationalized.

The US should withdraw or renegotiate international trade agreements that don't impose limits on CO2, protect the environment generally, and protect workers.

That'll do for a start. Oh, and if all you're going to do is babble about it being "not realistic"...well, either put some fact behind it or don't bother. The fact is that there is nothing unrealistic in any of the above. A couple dozen laws should cover it nicely.


I'd have to say I agree with some of this, but I don't think we need to limit the number of children being born with higher taxes on those that have more children necessarily. Many nations without such schemes have reduced high fertility rates without heavy coercion. Most of the time empowerment of women is a much better way of encouraging declining fertility rates as that in many cases women enjoy having an education and a career outside of the home as opposed to them having several children because the church or social norms dictate people have more children.

Edit: Also putting real resources into stopping teen pregnancy would do a world of good regarding this too (something I would guess even Tramp would agree with). And according to a recent study having teens watch '16 and pregnant' would help them to understand that being 16 and pregnant really, really sucks.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
788. JohnLonergan
6:14 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
787. Birthmark
6:05 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 786. JohnLonergan:



Try soma, "a gram is better than a damn."

I'll be the judge of that!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
786. JohnLonergan
5:53 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 781. Birthmark:


Sometimes...if I'm drunk...they kinda make sense then...provided I've suffered a slight head injury, too.


Try soma, "a gram is better than a damn."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
785. JohnLonergan
5:49 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Now, why is it that I don't trust the nuclear industry?

Cumbrian nuclear dump 'virtually certain' to be eroded by rising sea levels

One million cubic metres of waste near Sellafield are housed at a site that was a mistake, admits Environment Agency

Britain's nuclear dump is virtually certain to be eroded by rising sea levels and to contaminate the Cumbrian coast with large amounts of radioactive waste, according to an internal document released by the Environment Agency (EA).

The document suggests that in retrospect it was a mistake to site the Drigg Low-Level Waste Repository (LLWR) on the Cumbrian coast because of its vulnerability to flooding. "It is doubtful whether the location of the LLWR site would be chosen for a new facility for near-surface radioactive waste disposal if the choice were being made now," it says.

The EA document estimates that the one million cubic metres of radioactive waste disposed of over the last 55 years by the civil and military nuclear industry at the site, near the Sellafield nuclear complex in west Cumbria, is going to start leaking on to the shoreline in "a few hundred to a few thousand years from now".

More at The Guardian ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
784. AlwaysThinkin
5:44 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 770. Cochise111:

Even Yahoo (one of the more liberal online sites) has now seen fit to post an article on how much the climate record has been manipulated to show nonexistent warming. They also document the recent GLOBAL cooling:

Link


Yahoo is only a 'more liberal online site' if you are a lock step right-wing authoritarian who is simply besides himself when someone dares to even slightly dissent from your far right wing orthodoxy see: 'Dr. Strangelove', movie (1964) for more information on why we laugh at people like you and why you desperately need to protect your bodily fluids!



Quoting 771. yoboi:



Read the comment section from that link and it will show the majority of people do not think CAGW is real.....


Oh so we are determining what percentage of people think CAGW (I'm assuming the 'C' stands for 'Costly', which it will be to mitigate or adapt to the longer we wait and don't think my wallet is eager to pick up your tab, bud) is happening by looking at blog comments at a website? Hey looky that we have a blog website right here and wouldn't you know it the people who think Costly Anthropogenic Warming is happening far outnumber those that don't. Thanks for showing that more people think it's happening than don't! Or was that not your intent? If that's the case then you should do what most people do and use actual polling data which have a century plus track record. But then again if the facts haunt you there's always divining the facts using website comments or looking at how pig droppings are spread out in a barn yard or astrological signs really anything is possible then!

P.S. in case anyone is wondering Yahoo! is well known to cater to older people (especially those who use Yahoo Mail compared to Gmail). And in my experience older people who are still fuming that the sixties ever happened and there is no way of going of going back to the social order that existed before it.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
783. yoboi
5:42 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 776. Daisyworld:


I did not know that individuals who read the comment sections in Yahoo articles constituted the "majority of people".

Can you show us your data showing that when a majority of comments in a Yahoo article deny the existence of human-induced climate change, that it correlates to actual scientific fact?



Just like the 75 out of 77 scientist = the 97% consensus......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
782. Patrap
5:20 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
781. Birthmark
5:01 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 780. schwankmoe:



could be worse. ever read youtube comments?

Sometimes...if I'm drunk...they kinda make sense then...provided I've suffered a slight head injury, too.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
780. schwankmoe
4:42 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 779. Birthmark:


Don't you remember how the Big Bang and Evolution theories were overturned due to the comments section in AOL?

Yeah, me neither.


could be worse. ever read youtube comments?
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 688
779. Birthmark
4:38 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 777. JohnLonergan:




Read the comment section from that link and it will show the majority of people do not think CAGW is real.....


That just proves once again that H.L. Mencken was right:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken


Don't you remember how the Big Bang and Evolution theories were overturned due to the comments section in AOL?

Yeah, me neither.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
778. Patrap
4:22 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 771. yoboi:



Read the comment section from that link and it will show the majority of people do not think CAGW is real.....


Derp'


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
777. JohnLonergan
4:18 PM GMT on April 20, 2014



Read the comment section from that link and it will show the majority of people do not think CAGW is real.....


That just proves once again that H.L. Mencken was right:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
776. Daisyworld
4:12 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 771. yoboi:



Read the comment section from that link and it will show the majority of people do not think CAGW is real.....


I did not know that individuals who read the comment sections in Yahoo articles constituted the "majority of people".

Can you show us your data showing that when a majority of comments in a Yahoo article deny the existence of human-induced climate change, that it correlates to actual scientific fact?
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
775. schwankmoe
4:11 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 771. yoboi:



Read the comment section from that link and it will show the majority of people do not think CAGW is real.....


thank god reality isn't determined by what is written on yahoo's message boards. yeesh.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 688
774. JohnLonergan
3:34 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 768. Birthmark:


As far as I can tell, libel has never been protected speech. IMO, Steyn libelled Mann. Many, many people have criticized Mann without going over that line. Steyn needs to take responsibility for his own actions.

Curry once again seems willing to run her keyboard about something she apparently doesn't understand.


It seems like she has been suffering from Mann envy ever since Mann came to the fore as a "celebrity" scientist".
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
773. Neapolitan
3:33 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 770. Cochise111:

Even Yahoo (one of the more liberal online sites) has now seen fit to post an article on how much the climate record has been manipulated to show nonexistent warming. They also document the recent GLOBAL cooling:

Link


Oh, dear lord. The self-aggrandizing editor/publisher/writer for the little-known "Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin"--and author of such obviously science-based articles as "Oil Field Services: 3 Ways To Invest in the Oil Sands", "How To Invest in LNG - Liquefied Natural Gas: A 3-Step Strategy ", and ""Waterless Fracking" - Using LPG for Greater Oil & Gas Recovery"--penned an opinion piece that's stuffed with denialist nonsense and wishful thinking, and published in the finances section of Yahoo!

The small-minded and gullible will see hope in the piece. The slow and stupid will see cause for celebration. But grownups will see just another desperate man trying to lie his way into profits.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13611
772. JohnLonergan
3:26 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 761. Neapolitan:

Yes, we are one country. It's funny how flag-waving, chest-beating believers in the childish myth of American Exceptionalism suddenly turn all weak-kneed and cowardly when confronted with doing anything about climate change, choosing instead to point whiny little fingers at China and India and Russia and mewling, "But...but...but they're not doing anything, so why should we? W-a-a-a-a-ahhhhhhh!!!"

Yes, we are one country. A country that used to want to lead the world and rule by example, now banished to cowering in the shadows, afraid to do anything lest we threaten even the smallest fraction of the astronomical fortunes of the ruling oligarchies.

Yes, we are one country. A country that is in serious, serious trouble. A country with vast and worsening income inequality that sees wealth and political power being confined to the very top of the population. (There’s a study coming out in the fall from Martin Gilens [Princeton] and Benjamin Page [Northwestern] that concludes, "...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened ... the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.") And a very large part of that wealth continues to flow from fossil fuels--oil, coal, and gas. And those rising oligarchs want to defend and protect those fortunes and that power, so they rely heavily on sheep of the Fox News variety to do their bidding for them.

Yes, we are one country. A country full of conservative news outlets and denialist internet blogs vomiting anti-science nonsense 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, thereby convincing low-information types that everything's just peachy with the climate and that more CO2 is awesome and that sea level rise just means a chance to tan on the warm, balmy beaches of Kansas, making it virtually impossible for any progress at all to be made. 97%-98% of scientists support global warming theory. But far fewer than half of conservative legislators do.

So, my detailed proposal: 1) keep working hard to balance the intentional ignorance emitting from the denialosphere, and 2) keep working hard to convince voters to get rid of the ignorati in Congress who feel it's their job to be do-boys for fossil fuel magnates.

Hope that's detailed enough.

Yes, we are one country. And the only way to keep it that way is to diminish the power and influence of the Kochs, et al.


Krugman writes:

...on the right, you often find assertions that any attempt to limit pollution will have devastating impacts on growth. But there’s no reason we can’t become richer while reducing our impact on the environment.

Free-market advocates seem to experience a peculiar loss of faith whenever the subject of the environment comes up. They normally trumpet their belief that the magic of the market can surmount all obstacles — that the private sector’s flexibility and talent for innovation can easily cope with limiting factors like scarcity of land or minerals. But suggest the possibility of market-friendly environmental measures, like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, and they suddenly assert that the private sector would be unable to cope, that the costs would be immense. Funny how that works.


And one of the guiding lights of the Austrian school of neoliberal free market economics wrote in Road to Serfdom

:“Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.” (Hayek, 1944)



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
771. yoboi
3:20 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 770. Cochise111:
Even Yahoo (one of the more liberal online sites) now realizes how much the climate record has been manipulated to show nonexistent warming. They also document the recent GLOBAL cooling:

Link


Read the comment section from that link and it will show the majority of people do not think CAGW is real.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2405
769. Naga5000
3:09 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
I love how people who deny Global Warming come here and demand answers from us.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3625
768. Birthmark
2:45 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 767. JohnLonergan:

From the WTF is Curry thinking? department:

Judith Curry and George Brandis on Free Speech

As far as I can tell, libel has never been protected speech. IMO, Steyn libelled Mann. Many, many people have criticized Mann without going over that line. Steyn needs to take responsibility for his own actions.

Curry once again seems willing to run her keyboard about something she apparently doesn't understand.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
767. JohnLonergan
2:04 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
From the WTF is Curry thinking? department:

Judith Curry and George Brandis on Free Speech

I don't have much to say about the fact that Judith Curry seems to have embraced Mark Steyn (archived here), who is being sued for defamation. Judith says with her usual carefully ambiguous wording that: Mark Steyn has written a remarkable defense of free speech.

All I will say is that I do not want to live in a society that allows people to tell lies about others to such an extent that it ruins their professional or personal reputation. That's why most societies have laws protecting people from this.

Freedom of speech came at a big cost to past generations and there are some societies where it still doesn't exist. Those people who gave their lives for it would be turning in their graves to know how it's being abused by some people today. The right to free speech also carries responsibility. (I'm all for freedom and I do think it's important to distinguish between giving offence and causing unwarranted and undeserved harm. That distinction seems to be blurred in the mind of some of the most vocal people who complain they aren't permitted to freely libel and slander others, but take offence when other people exercise their right to free speech and criticise them in turn).

More at Hotwhopper ...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
765. Xulonn
1:56 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 761. Neapolitan:

Yes, we are one country. It's funny how flag-waving, chest-beating believers in the childish myth of American Exceptionalism suddenly turn all weak-kneed and cowardly when confronted with doing anything about climate change, choosing instead to point whiny little fingers at China and India and Russia and mewling, "But...but...but they're not doing anything, so why should we? W-a-a-a-a-ahhhhhhh!!!"

Yes, we are one country. A country that used to want to lead the world and rule by example, now banished to cowering in the shadows, afraid to do anything lest we threaten even the smallest fraction of the astronomical fortunes of the ruling oligarchies.

Yes, we are one country. A country that is in serious, serious trouble. A country with vast and worsening income inequality that sees wealth and political power being confined to the very top of the population. (There’s a study coming out in the fall from Martin Gilens [Princeton] and Benjamin Page [Northwestern] that concludes, "...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened ... the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.") And a very large part of that wealth continues to flow from fossil fuels--oil, coal, and gas. And those rising oligarchs want to defend and protect those fortunes and that power, so they rely heavily on sheep of the Fox News variety to do their bidding for them.

Yes, we are one country. A country full of conservative news outlets and denialist internet blogs vomiting anti-science nonsense 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, thereby convincing low-information types that everything's just peachy with the climate and that more CO2 is awesome and that sea level rise just means a chance to tan on the warm, balmy beaches of Kansas, making it virtually impossible for any progress at all to be made. 97%-98% of scientists support global warming theory. But far fewer than half of conservative legislators do.

So, my detailed proposal: 1) keep working hard to balance the intentional ignorance emitting from the denialosphere, and 2) keep working hard to convince voters to get rid of the ignorati in Congress who feel it's their job to be do-boys for fossil fuel magnates.

Hope that's detailed enough.

Yes, we are one country. And the only way to keep it that way is to diminish the power and influence of the Kochs, et al.
Excellent facts plus snark, Jim. And I might add that an informed populace that participates in the political process is vital to sustaining democracy, and I do not see much chance of that happening in the U.S.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1496
762. JohnLonergan
1:29 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Easter greetings from Professor Rabett

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
761. Neapolitan
1:06 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 757. tramp96:


Yes I would like a detailed proposal from you and everyone who +'s your comment on how
the United States should deal with AGW.
We are only one country

Link

PS Birthmark only realistic proposals not the "limit us to only one child" dream.
Yes, we are one country. It's funny how flag-waving, chest-beating believers in the childish myth of American Exceptionalism suddenly turn all weak-kneed and cowardly when confronted with doing anything about climate change, choosing instead to point whiny little fingers at China and India and Russia and mewling, "But...but...but they're not doing anything, so why should we? W-a-a-a-a-ahhhhhhh!!!"

Yes, we are one country. A country that used to want to lead the world and rule by example, now banished to cowering in the shadows, afraid to do anything lest we threaten even the smallest fraction of the astronomical fortunes of the ruling oligarchies.

Yes, we are one country. A country that is in serious, serious trouble. A country with vast and worsening income inequality that sees wealth and political power being confined to the very top of the population. (There’s a study coming out in the fall from Martin Gilens [Princeton] and Benjamin Page [Northwestern] that concludes, "...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened ... the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.") And a very large part of that wealth continues to flow from fossil fuels--oil, coal, and gas. And those rising oligarchs want to defend and protect those fortunes and that power, so they rely heavily on sheep of the Fox News variety to do their bidding for them.

Yes, we are one country. A country full of conservative news outlets and denialist internet blogs vomiting anti-science nonsense 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, thereby convincing low-information types that everything's just peachy with the climate and that more CO2 is awesome and that sea level rise just means a chance to tan on the warm, balmy beaches of Kansas, making it virtually impossible for any progress at all to be made. 97%-98% of scientists support global warming theory. But far fewer than half of conservative legislators do.

So, my detailed proposal: 1) keep working hard to balance the intentional ignorance emitting from the denialosphere, and 2) keep working hard to convince voters to get rid of the ignorati in Congress who feel it's their job to be do-boys for fossil fuel magnates.

Hope that's detailed enough.

Yes, we are one country. And the only way to keep it that way is to diminish the power and influence of the Kochs, et al.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13611
760. JohnLonergan
1:01 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Easter, 1916

BY WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS


I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

That woman's days were spent
In ignorant good-will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When, young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our wingèd horse;
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vainglorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute they change;
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim,
And a horse plashes within it;
The long-legged moor-hens dive,
And hens to moor-cocks call;
Minute by minute they live:
The stone's in the midst of all.

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse—
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3454
758. Birthmark
12:52 PM GMT on April 20, 2014
Quoting 757. tramp96:


Yes I would like a detailed proposal from you and everyone who 's your comment on how
the United States should deal with AGW.
We are only one country

Link

PS Birthmark only realistic proposals not the "limit us to only one child" dream.

I looked it up on the interwebz. Nowhere can I find any reference to you being the arbiter of what's realistic, though I did find some posts by you that seem to indicate the precise opposite.

For instance, I never said "limit us to only one child." However, I did say tax the h-e-double hockey sticks (see what I did there) out of people who have more than one living child, excluding those already with more than one.

To that I would add, that mass-transit be mandated by the Federal government. Eventually, all private, automobiles should be prohibited from large cities.

Further all subsidies, tax-credits, and any other breaks to fossil fuel companies should be phased out. Exploration and drilling should be phased out. Exporting fossil fuels should be phased out.

A new electric infrastructure should be phased in where property owners produce their own electricity through renewable sources. Electrical companies should be tasked with maintaining the grid and power lines...and nationalized.

The US should withdraw or renegotiate international trade agreements that don't impose limits on CO2, protect the environment generally, and protect workers.

That'll do for a start. Oh, and if all you're going to do is babble about it being "not realistic"...well, either put some fact behind it or don't bother. The fact is that there is nothing unrealistic in any of the above. A couple dozen laws should cover it nicely.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 808 - 758

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.