Trump to roll back Obama-era climate actions, power plant emissions rule

[spookyturtle 9,466]

8 minutes ago, eieio said:

Sure....it's pretty simple. I am sitting down in a chair in the exact spot....where there was a glacier eons ago. It appears to me the glacier is gone....and I bet two of my chainsaws...to one of your favorite sheep....that man had nothing to do with it.

Simple sums it up.

And I'll keep my chainsaw.

Edited March 29, 2017 by spookyturtle

[bcking 3,157]

13 hours ago, eieio said:

What do any of those have to do with the earths, normal and continuous, heating and cooling periods?  

 

If you want your uranium tailing cocktails.....you can keep uranium tailing cocktails. I will pass.

1. The earth undergoes normal, continuous heating and cooling periods

2. The presence of humans burning fossil fuels in massive amounts is contributing to warming of the planet significantly

 

Those two things can both be right at the same time. Even if the earth is going through a normal heating period, I'd still rather limit our impact on that process so that it happens slower. The earth may naturally warm to the point where humans can't survive, but I'd rather not speed that process up if possible.

Edited March 29, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

I do agree that much like anything else, temperatures have cycles to. There's a pretty well known and well studied 60 year cycle that points to relative cooling pretty soon. That doesn't mean the highs and lows can't both be higher in each cycle as we move forward, nor does it mean we can't or don't contribute to it, but there are definitely also other forces in play here.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

I do agree that much like anything else, temperatures have cycles to. There's a pretty well known and well studied 60 year cycle that points to relative cooling pretty soon. That doesn't mean the highs and lows can't both be higher in each cycle as we move forward, nor does it mean we can't or don't contribute to it, but there are definitely also other forces in play here.

I think most geologists would laugh at a "60 year cycle". The earth's cycles are much more massive scales.

 

My wife's career is built on drilling for oil. She does better in her career and makes more money if she finds more oil. Yet even she supports working towards minimizing our reliance on fossil fuels in the future. She sees it as a necessary evil right now, but believes we need to work towards limiting our reliance on it. She actually thinks working in the industry is one of the best ways to impact it. She has personally advocated against particularly plays in part for environmental reasons. 

[OriZ 3,157]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think most geologists would laugh at a "60 year cycle". The earth's cycles are much more massive scales.

 

My wife's career is built on drilling for oil. She does better in her career and makes more money if she finds more oil. Yet even she supports working towards minimizing our reliance on fossil fuels in the future. She sees it as a necessary evil right now, but believes we need to work towards limiting our reliance on it. She actually thinks working in the industry is one of the best ways to impact it. She has personally advocated against particularly plays in part for environmental reasons. 

There are longer time cycles in play as well, but there's definitely a 60 year cycle as well. Just like with the stock market there are many different cycles, from 7 years to hundreds of years. HADCRUT4 doesn't go very far back, but is so far the most reliable short term. We are supposed to see some cooling and easing in global warming according to that for the next 40-50 years or so, before the cycle turns higher again. We'll see what happens but I'm a huge believer in cycles. I didn't say that we don't need to work on finding more efficient and clean ways to produce energy, that's a no brainer whether or not you believe global warming is "a thing'". There is no reason to be against more efficiency, in anything, really.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

There are longer time cycles in play as well, but there's definitely a 60 year cycle as well. Just like with the stock market there are many different cycles, from 7 years to hundreds of years. HADCRUT4 doesn't go very far back, but is so far the most reliable short term. We are supposed to see some cooling and easing in global warming according to that for the next 40-50 years or so, before the cycle turns higher again. We'll see what happens but I'm a huge believer in cycles. I didn't say that we don't need to work on finding more efficient and clean ways to produce energy, that's a no brainer whether or not you believe global warming is "a thing'". There is no reason to be against more efficiency, in anything, really.

We cannot wait 60 years to see if you may or may not be right.  We don't get to run several controlled experiments. 

 

Time is not our friend.  The question is have you examined the evidence and do you believe what ALL climate scientists agree...carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere causes temperatures to warm, ice to melt and oceans to acidity?

 

This is not a wishy washy question. Yes or No.

[OriZ 3,157]

10 minutes ago, ccneat said:

We cannot wait 60 years to see if you may or may not be right.  We don't get to run several controlled experiments. 

 

Time is not our friend.  The question is have you examined the evidence and do you believe what ALL climate scientists agree...carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere causes temperatures to warm, ice to melt and oceans to acidity?

 

This is not a wishy washy question. Yes or No.

For starters if you actually read my post it has nothing at all to do with whether or not I am right. It wouldn't be me that's right, it would be the stats(and they are right, no need to wait 60 years to find out), and they can coexist just fine with the fact that like I said we can contribute as well. Secondly, it's just false that ALL climate scientists agree. Simply false. As usual, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, it causes all that. But I don't think it's as heavy an influence or as big a part of the equation as you try to portray. That doesn't mean we don't need to make sure to remove it as much from the equation as we can.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

For starters if you actually read my post it has nothing at all to do with whether or not I am right. It wouldn't be me that's right, it would be the stats(and they are right, no need to wait 60 years to find out), and they can coexist just fine with the fact that like I said we can contribute as well. Secondly, it's just false that ALL climate scientists agree. Simply false. As usual, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, it causes all that. But I don't think it's as heavy an influence or as big a part of the equation as you try to portray. That doesn't mean we don't need to make sure to remove it as much from the equation as we can.

Some where in the middle doesn't do squat. Where is your money? On black and red at the same time?

 

Find me one recent (4 years)peer reviewed study by a climate scientist ( not a retired geologist) that refutes what all climate scientists agree.

Edited March 29, 2017 by ccneat

[TBoneTX 45,301]

A noncontributory post has been removed.

[Dashinka 24,505]

5 hours ago, OriZ said:

There are longer time cycles in play as well, but there's definitely a 60 year cycle as well. Just like with the stock market there are many different cycles, from 7 years to hundreds of years. HADCRUT4 doesn't go very far back, but is so far the most reliable short term. We are supposed to see some cooling and easing in global warming according to that for the next 40-50 years or so, before the cycle turns higher again. We'll see what happens but I'm a huge believer in cycles. I didn't say that we don't need to work on finding more efficient and clean ways to produce energy, that's a no brainer whether or not you believe global warming is "a thing'". There is no reason to be against more efficiency, in anything, really.

I agree with always striving to increase the efficient consumption of energy sources.  I also agree with the fact that natural cycles and natural effects play a huge role.  It has been my experience that the whole man-made thing is thin when it comes to climate cycles.  I know, 97% of "peer reviewed" papers agree, but this is a self-serving process, and when I use some of the models these scientistists created, I often wonder how smart they really are based on some of the assumptions they bake into the models.

 

Again, efficiency increases = good, but we need to couple any new technologies with a complete efficiency sustainability study.  Does it make the Tesla owner feel good that by their purchase they have contributed to a real environmental mess somewhere else I the world, or do they just ignore that based on the NIMBY mentality.  

[OriZ 3,157]

6 hours ago, ccneat said:

Some where in the middle doesn't do squat. Where is your money? On black and red at the same time?

 

Find me one recent (4 years)peer reviewed study by a climate scientist ( not a retired geologist) that refutes what all climate scientists agree.

Even the most optimistic numbers skewed in your favor claim 97% agree, but there are numbers that are much lower than that. No one except for you says 100%. You can say most, the majority, many, saying ALL, in ALL CAPS is fake news. Nevertheless, I'm a numbers and stats and data and facts type person, and nowhere in my posts did I say we don't contribute, on the contrary so really I'm not sure what you want me to say to make you happy. Essentially in most ways my post was not very different from that of bcking, but maybe you associate me with "the right"(although on many issues I'm far from it) and didn't even bother reading what I actually said. Just because I don't agree with you on the extent and believe there are also other contributory forces in play, doesn't mean I wouldn't want to do what we can to keep this earth cleaner and healthier. My wife and I both love and appreciate nature and I don't want to see anything bad happening to do with climate change or anything adversely affecting animals. That said, I am also a very practical person and I realize we can't jump the gun here. Progress is good, but sometimes when you go too fast, you end up having to start all over again.

 

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree with always striving to increase the efficient consumption of energy sources.  I also agree with the fact that natural cycles and natural effects play a huge role.  It has been my experience that the whole man-made thing is thin when it comes to climate cycles.  I know, 97% of "peer reviewed" papers agree, but this is a self-serving process, and when I use some of the models these scientistists created, I often wonder how smart they really are based on some of the assumptions they bake into the models.

 

Again, efficiency increases = good, but we need to couple any new technologies with a complete efficiency sustainability study.  Does it make the Tesla owner feel good that by their purchase they have contributed to a real environmental mess somewhere else I the world, or do they just ignore that based on the NIMBY mentality.  

Like I just told ccneat, the highest number you can find out there is 97%, and goes down from there depending on who ya ask. I think alot of people like to just feel good thinking they did something good but most of the time it is pretty insignificant when you look at the big picture. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Again, efficiency increases = good, but we need to couple any new technologies with a complete efficiency sustainability study.  Does it make the Tesla owner feel good that by their purchase they have contributed to a real environmental mess somewhere else I the world, or do they just ignore that based on the NIMBY mentality.  

Ya that is also very important. Things like hybrid cars are great for making people's egos inflate about the "contribution" they are making to the environment, but in reality it is not quite clear cut. You have to factor in the age of the car they are replacing to get their fancy new hybrid and what they are wasting by not using their prior car to its fullest extent, then you have to factor in the batteries and the building of their fancy new hybrid.

[OriZ 3,157]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree with always striving to increase the efficient consumption of energy sources.  I also agree with the fact that natural cycles and natural effects play a huge role.  It has been my experience that the whole man-made thing is thin when it comes to climate cycles.  I know, 97% of "peer reviewed" papers agree, but this is a self-serving process, and when I use some of the models these scientistists created, I often wonder how smart they really are based on some of the assumptions they bake into the models.

 

Again, efficiency increases = good, but we need to couple any new technologies with a complete efficiency sustainability study.  Does it make the Tesla owner feel good that by their purchase they have contributed to a real environmental mess somewhere else I the world, or do they just ignore that based on the NIMBY mentality.  

Since you brought up models I have to add something I forgot before. Not to go off topic but again, I can only go based off my own experiences with what I do. You have people believing in silly things like "The Fed Model" and treating it as gospel even though it's highly unreliable. So while I never personally did what you did when it comes to climate change, your findings don't surprise me at all. It would be nice if people learned to think for themselves.

Edited March 29, 2017 by OriZ

[Dashinka 24,505]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

Ya that is also very important. Things like hybrid cars are great for making people's egos inflate about the "contribution" they are making to the environment, but in reality it is not quite clear cut. You have to factor in the age of the car they are replacing to get their fancy new hybrid and what they are wasting by not using their prior car to its fullest extent, then you have to factor in the batteries and the building of their fancy new hybrid.

This is an interesting comment.  I often think about this as all the talk about driverless cars comes up.  Can you imagine how long it will take to completely turn over the entire world's fleet of cars and trucks?  This is just a guess on my part, but I am thinking 50+ years.