Fighting Climate Change Makes Economic Sense; Cities Should Take The Lead, Study Finds

[lostinblue 1,989]

Posting random articles proves nothing.

But you keep postinhg....So is Miami underwater yet ?

[Rob L 3,811]

[Rob L 3,811]

Scenario:

Replace 12 lightbulbs in a house that uses 4 hours of lighting a day. Assume $12 investment per bulb (link to affordable warm light dimmable bulbs)

You have paid for your investment in 15 months ( 10 % investment in a bond, if you could get it would be 7 year payback )

Question: What are we waiting for? Everymonth one delays changing to LEDs you lose $11.00

Energy Savings Results

Investment for LED Replacement: $139.80 Current Electric Cost Per Month: $11.23 Electric Cost Using LEDs Per Month: $1.91 Energy Savings Per Month: $9.32 Total Energy Savings: $1553.76 Total Bulb Replacement Savings: $-32.00 Break-even Point: 15 months Total Savings Using LED Bulbs: $1521.76 Return on Investment: 988.53%

[GandD 5,966]

Like the ethanol scam?

That one is a scam. I'll give you that.

[Rob L 3,811]

The end is near. We are doomed. The earth is almost dead.

Oh....I forgot....send us your money

No, we are proposing to put money in your pocket

[Rob L 3,811]

Vaclav Klaus

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“future generations will wonder inH bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, oIrn the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

Richard Linzen is an interesting case among the 3% of the climate scientists who believe we are over reacting

1. He is well respected as a climate scientist by other climate scientist ( although he has a reputation as a contrarian)
2. He believes that Carbon Dioxide has a warming effect, without a doubt BUT
3. We are overreacting to the warming effect because of something he calls the IRIS effect that will create negative feedback and cause the planet to automatically cool
4. He maintains that it is immoral to impose our values and theories about carbon on poor and developing countries as this will increase poverty for them

My rebuttal:

1. Satellite Evidence shows sea levels are rising
2. We don't have proof that negative feedback will cool the planet, it is a theory
3. The stakes are high (you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?")
4. The point of this thread is that investment in alternatives to carbon consumption raise economic quality of life

This New York Times article outlines the argument in non laboratory speak, read the article for your self and draw your own conclusions

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds — which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location — will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.

Their theory exploits the greatest remaining mystery in climate science, the difficulty that researchers have had in predicting how clouds will change. The scientific majority believes that clouds will most likely have a neutral effect or will even amplify the warming, perhaps strongly, but the lack of unambiguous proof has left room for dissent.

“Clouds really are the biggest uncertainty,” said Andrew E. Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M. “If you listen to the credible climate skeptics, they’ve really pushed all their chips onto clouds.”

Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day. His stature in the field — he has been making seminal contributions to climate science since the 1960s — has amplified his influence.

Dr. Lindzen says the earth is not especially sensitive to greenhouse gases because clouds will react to counter them, and he believes he has identified a specific mechanism. On a warming planet, he says, less coverage by high clouds in the tropics will allow more heat to escape to space, countering the temperature increase

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But you keep postinhg....So is Miami underwater yet ?

Bravo maestro.

[eieio 1,594]

.So is Miami underwater yet ?

No. The latest news is that warmer temps cause more ice to develop.

So Miami is safe for today. Tomorrow a new threat will be invented.

Oh....we are doomed.....send us your money.

[Karee 4,191]

Richard Linzen is an interesting case among the 3% of the climate scientists who believe we are over reacting

3%? In the other thread it was less than 1%. All these numbers and percentages are so confusing.

[Rob L 3,811]

3%? In the other thread it was less than 1%. All these numbers and percentages are so confusing.

No need to strain your head. This study shows that 97 % of actively publishing climate scientists do not doubt global warming or that humans caused it. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[Rob L 3,811]

are you maintaining that when warming occurs, ice will increase OR warming has occurred and ice has increased?

No. The latest news is that warmer temps cause more ice to develop.

So Miami is safe for today. Tomorrow a new threat will be invented.

Oh....we are doomed.....send us your money.

[Curmudgeon 227]

That one is a scam. I'll give you that.

It wasn't a scam, it was ill thought out but it wasn't a scam - at least I have seen absolutely no evidence that someone deliberately set out to create a false market for corn.

[eieio 1,594]

It wasn't a scam, it was ill thought out but it wasn't a scam - at least I have seen absolutely no evidence that someone deliberately set out to create a false market for corn.

And yet the scam continues today. So I guess just for you...when an ill thought out plan, becomes a failed plan and then continues on....with plans to up the ethanol %, become a scam?

[eieio 1,594]

are you maintaining that when warming occurs, ice will increase OR warming has occurred and ice has increased?

I maintain that man made global warming nuts say that global warming causes the earth to get warmer and colder overall at the same time. If the temps decrease for the next 100 years........it's just man made global warming.Or if it gets warmer...same cause.

Never mind that the earths temp has never remained constant.

[Curmudgeon 227]

And yet the scam continues today. So I guess just for you...when an ill thought out plan, becomes a failed plan and then continues on....with plans to up the ethanol %, become a scam?

Does it? What makes it a scam? Who is scamming who and who is profiting? Is there a government subsidy involved in ethanol production and is it more or less than the subsidy that oil producers get?

Edited September 21, 2014 by Curmudgeon