Global Warming and all that stuff.

[Corsair 115]

Alberta, by itself has enough oil to continue for exporting it for the next 100 years.

Isn't the caveat there that most of that additional petroleum is locked up in the tar sands? Extracting useful petroleum from that is an energy-intesive process that requires a lot of water, as I understand it.

 

[Azure]

Isn't the caveat there that most of that additional petroleum is locked up in the tar sands? Extracting useful petroleum from that is an energy-intesive process that requires a lot of water, as I understand it.

A lot of energy, as I understand it, which is why the government is suggesting turning to nuclear in order to extract it.

And not only that..but a price about 50 bucks a barrel, something like that, is needed in order for the extraction from the oil sands to actually turn a profit. Much less break even.

I simply do not understand why 15 nuclear plants could not be built throughout North America. Don't even look at global warming for a reason...but look at the dependence on fossil fuels. They are a finite resource. Eventually they will run out. Might not be in our lifetime, or the next...or even 2-3 generations down the road...but eventually they will.

Naturally, we would assume that mankind will adapt. Well now is a good a time as any to START adapting.

I think the NIMBY crowd has too much say.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, the long term will NOT look after itself.

You'll have no say in it, that's for certain.

Alberta, by itself has enough oil to continue for exporting it for the next 100 years.

That's still not long-term. Not beyond the grandchildren's children, which is medium-term anyway.

Perhaps even more.

Perhaps actually less.

As long as the demand remains, WE WILL sell our oil.

Of course. Which "WE" are you speaking for? What group does your "I" identify with?

 

[Wolverine]

Note: I'm not attempting to post flame bait here, so please don't take my comments personally. I'm just trying to be as bluntly honest as possible.

Probably a bad habit.

I posted the initial comment...and went back and edited it to add some more.

Mostly to clarify what I was talking about.

Okay, It just struck me as odd.

Yes, I saw that.

Oh well, since some wrote a rebuttal, I guess we should dismiss it.

This isn't anywhere near as reasonable as the quote below.

You think the whole article is flawed because of the rebuttal?

There is a lot more substance to it then simply talking about anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

Nobody suggested the paper be summarily dismissed because a rebuttal was written. The rebuttal (again, published by the same journal, to their credit) does, however, demonstrate that the paper you cited by Khilyuk & Chilingar is riddled with errors -- not minor "oops" mistakes (and not only those dealing with anthropogenic CO2), but truly egregious flaws that some feel call into question the legitimacy of Environmental Geology from having published it in the first place. That's pretty serious. It's also why I asked if you'd seen the rebuttal. More specifically, did you see it but not read it, or did you actually study its content?

If you saw Werner Aeschbach-Hertig's paper and didn't look at it, that would suggest you didn't care enough about doing so in advance, or perhaps didn't want to see criticism of Khilyuk & Chilingar -- whose paper you originally seemed quite proud to cite. You even questioned varwoche's skepticism in the process for not being aware of such ubiquitous, peer-reviewed gems.

If you had actually taken some time to study and digest its content (or read additional reviews of their work), you would have seen the errors Khilyuk & Chilingar committed plainly exposed. These gentlemen are not climate scientists -- they're petroleum engineers/geologists (and they may be very good ones, but that does not absolve their abysmal methodologies that you were in such a rush to cite).

If you saw the rebuttal but didn't read/understand it, or, did read it and disregarded its content, you're guilty of the very same dismissive behavior you've been attempting to pin on others.

If that weren't enough, you could have subsequently posted a simple retraction, something like "Oops, sorry -- I see the Khilyuk & Chilingar paper is problematic, and wasn't the best source I could have cited to support my argument; I'll find another...", but you didn't. Instead, you shifted the goal posts to suggest the paper you cited demonstrates problems in the peer review process (and that those problems apply to pro-AGW papers published in peer-reviewed journals, but you never provided any examples as evidence). Honestly, Azure, your behavior in this thread rather perplexes me. Your posts appear contradictory, and exemplify precisely the same behavior to which you claim other participants here have resorted.

Help me out here...

I'm not pro-pollution, and I am NOT a denier, despite the labeling being tossed around in this thread...I believe AGW is read.....just how significant is it?

Is that a typo (should it say real instead of read)? Are you stating that you accept the existence of anthropogenic global warming? If so, it's really difficult to discern from your earlier contributions to this thread:


#442

Yes science. The very science that has said beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming IS man-made.

I'm all for cleaning up the environment, developing alternative measures, etc, etc...but the global warming paranoia...is too me, much like the paranoia started by Baptists and many other fundamental groups concerning the end days.

Remember Hal Lindsey telling us that the world was going to end in '86? Or on Y2K?

#444

Posting links to scientists from numerous academy's [sic] does NOTHING to prove that global warming is a MAN-MADE problem. Get it?

#446

Rather, it is the people who refuse to look at 'both' sides of the argument...yes, on one hand, global warming is an established fact, but on the other hand, there is no science that will PROVE that mankind is the driving force behind global warming.

There is also the belief that global warming is natural...expressed by many of the people I quoted above. But no, I am a denier.

Do you understand how others could conclude from your statements that you do not accept the existence of AGW?

Also...I am simply not going to read one side of the arguement and make up my mind, unlike others. And no, the other side is NOT the side that 'denies' global warming. I don't see how one can be skeptical, and simply dismiss what we disagree with.

From your posts, though, I get the impression that this is precisely what you've done. I get the impression that you reached your conclusion first, and then went looking for evidence to cherry-pick in order to support it. I could, of course, be wrong -- but that's sure how it looks. And, if I'm correct, that would also paint many of your comments like these in quite a hypocritical light.

If I'm wrong, I'm willing to admit my mistake. Will you offer the same admissions in a forthcoming manner? Thus far you've ignored correction, and that unfortunately (further) impedes the discussion (first example: Corsair 115's cite regarding "solar activity", which you never acknowledged).

Most of us are NOT climate scientists, so we look towards credible people for knowledge and understanding.

Which is why it would behoove you to cite climate scientists instead of, say, petroleum engineers or geologists when presenting an argument (or evidence substantiating one).

Well, are you going to look at the side YOU want to agree with, or at people from both sides of the coin?

Skepticism is healthy, and a good thing. Selective skepticism is not. Again, I could be wrong here, but I think you're suffering from a case of confirmation bias. IMO, your contributions appear to be fueled more by politics than science. And, I know how that goes, too, from experience (even on this very forum) -- I used to trap myself in the same types of pitfalls for those very reasons. Once I took the time to objectively consider the sum of the evidence, my understanding of the subject matter (and methodologies) improved, and my position changed because I followed where the evidence lead instead of relying more comfortably upon my preconceived notions or political ideologies.

Because to simply dismiss any skeptics is, IMO, foolish. Especially if those skeptics are not the two-bit think-tank from Washington, or some documentary you don't like....but REAL scientists, and people who have been in the climate research field for a LONG time.

This is all the more reason to more carefully scrutinize your sources. Those you've provided of late are not specifically too good. Citing articles which are trumpeted by intelligent design proponents, for example, should (usually) raise a big ol' red flag.

 

[Wolverine]

And thanks to Wolverine for citing the rebuttal.

My pleasure.

 

[mhaze]

The US does have a high consumption rate. Why is that bad?

I don't a priori say it is. I say a lot believe or assert for various reasons it is.

A lot of your fellow-citizens would like your lifestyle.

Whatever that means. A lot of them would not.

Some parts of the world are treading the path laid down for them by Western society. Why is that bad?

I don't think it is. But there are implicit assumptions underlying many things that are worth examining. An example is the implicit "right to a certain amount" of carbon emissions and a right to have as many children as one wants. Further, a lot of the world wants the prolific Western goods that we have succeeded, but they want to retain obsolete cultural norms that are for the future, extremely problematic.

They want the right? Dispensed by whom? From those that went before them?

Good question. By those who last grabbed power over them of course; overlapping layers of it from local, state, federal, religious, and the emerging world government, etc. Right dispensed by the asserted "we" in conversation, along with a moralistic tone. ETc.

That's a tad too waffly for me to interpret at this hour.

A couple of things that constitute wealth are clean water easily available and a dependable food-supply.

Obvious....and so???

Are you implying that I'm a climate-criminal because I live (almost liiterally) surrounded by books? That will be regarded as a bad thing?
(Unfair, but what the heck, have I ever climed sainthood?)

Absolutely not. It is true that the copious quantities of books convey a great burden of guilt but this is offset by positive credits for cat bagging.
I've got an extensive library of out of print books. But the next generation, say teenagers and those in their 20s now, probably will not.

 

[Azure]

Wolverine, I have never denied AGW...and if you took my comments that way, well it is my mistake.

My problem rests in the belief that global warming, or the recent trend is 'strictly' a man-made problem. Seems to me that seems to be the point most skeptical scientists are trying to say.

One comment bothered me..

This is all the more reason to more carefully scrutinize your sources. Those you've provided of late are not specifically too good. Citing articles which are trumpeted by intelligent design proponents, for example, should (usually) raise a big ol' red flag.

That seems a bit, to be blunt, stupid to me.

I'm sure a lot of wacky people are anti-war...does that mean I can't be anti-war because some idiot, like Ion is anti-war?

Does that mean I HAVE to believe that AGW is the 'sole' reason for global warming...you know, the most important one, because certain intelligent design people have sided themselves with that same side?

In other words, are you going to dismiss credible scientists because certain ID proponents happen to side with them?

Skepticism is healthy, and a good thing. Selective skepticism is not.

I'm sorry, but this is stupid.

I agree that global warming is real, I agree that mankind plays a certain role in it, hence my belief in AGW, to a point....but my skeptical viewpoint is in regards to how BIG of a role mankind plays.

All my quotes are in regards of what I believe, and WHY I believe it. Sorry, but outside of you not liking that I don't agree with you, I really can't say much more here.

To me, it seems like you're doing the exact thing you accuse ME of doing. In fact, you like most others in this thread, have ignored for the most part those links I posted from MANY credible scientists regarding AGW...and how much a role it plays in global warming. In fact, as I read up on them, I noticed for the most part that many, if not all agree that mankind has contributed to global warming. Tell me, are they having a moment of select skepticism too? Now you see why that statement sounds so stupid? To be rather blunt.

but I think you're suffering from a case of confirmation bias. IMO, your contributions appear to be fueled more by politics than science.

What?

Confirmation bias? I am biased because I actually read the criticism regarding the IPCC report? I'm fueled by politics because I don't agree with you? Are all those scientists fueled by politics too?

Those you've provided of late are not specifically too good.

Yes, I will admit that I only glanced that the rebuttal towards the peer-reviewed article I posted...but given the fact that it IS a peer-reviewed article, I didn't read much more into it. So yes, that article probably wasn't a good source.

But I find it funny that you dismiss every other source I posted. In fact, I find it strange that you hold me accountable to not responding too a post...I read it, read the blog, learned something...yet, not you, nor ANY one else here, has responded to 'one' claim made by certain credible scientists in regards to global warming.

Of course I realize you're not fueled by politics, and your concern for the environment is above ALL else, but if you're going to hold me accountable to respond to EVERY post citing a rebuttal to something I posted(which is fair)...why haven't you responded to 'one' claim, from 'one' scientist.

Speaking of hypocritical....

In fact, everything I posted was largely ignored.

Select skepticism indeed.

Nice to know the double standard is alive and well.

 

[Schneibster]

There we go again.

Now you're accusing me of 'ignoring' the problem at hand. Strange how that works with people who are skeptical about AGW, the causes, and the result.

Maybe it's because you're ignoring the basic physics of the situation, which everyone can note you didn't quote or respond to. Interesting, that. (Of course, given your habits so far, perhaps it's not outside the editing time limit yet. But now that I've written this, everyone will notice if you do. )

No, rather then ignoring it...we should start building nuclear plants tomorrow. Not 10 years down the road, but tomorrow.

We are totally on the same page here, which is a bit surprising but not absolutely astonishing. On another thread on this very board, a member of the US nuclear engineering community pointed out that his company is turning work away because they can't handle what they've already got. That's because nobody is taking nuclear engineering classes in college, because a bunch of people who can't even spell it correctly can't find the difference in their minds between nucular bombs and nucular power, and think thousands of people died at Three Mile Island.

And we should spend 50 billion on alternatives, and NOT on curbing emissions.

But no, I'm ignoring the problem. Right.

Again, you didn't quote the physics- and that means you can't answer them. I'll also point out that because of that very dearth of nuclear engineers I pointed out above, it's going to be ten years or more before the first post-AGW generation of nuclear plants comes on-line, and that generation will be much smaller than it should be. We need to do everything we can to reduce the problem before that; we have already waited a decade, the Arctic says we don't have another.

No, I don't think.

I don't think I need to add anything to this.

I know that nuclear power has NO emissions...and I KNOW that it takes away a lot of dependence on fossil fuels.

It's also ten years away, and short on numbers of plants- basically, a day late and a dollar short unless we take other measures.

But of course, if we don't spend 50 billion on ridiculous things such as the Kyoto Accord....or else we won't be able to eat. Now WTF kind of dumb comment is that?

I'd say that you kind of missed the point- or was this malicious? You choose: are you an a$$h**e, or an idiot? One or the other has to be the case, either you've taken this out of context in your usual cherry-picking style or you completely failed to notice there WAS a context.

I'll tell you this: if you think nuclear energy is going to save our bacon all by itself, you're sadly mistaken. In the long term, it's absolutely the only way; and we need to be pursuing every avenue we can see toward fusion, as well (and currently we aren't). But we don't have a long term to wait for it. That's the problem.

If a bunch of idiots hadn't screwed up the nuclear power industry in this country, I'd be working on this myself; TMI happened about the time I was deciding what to take in college, and I had no illusions about what was going to happen after that. The nucular scare was in full cry about then, and nobody was listening to anything. Nucular was teh evul, and that was that. If those people hadn't done that crap, we'd be sittin' pretty about now- albeit perhaps with a lot more of a nuclear waste problem than we have now. You get what you pay for. In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better to have a nuclear waste crisis than a global warming crisis- the scope of the problem would have been far smaller. But that's water over the dam at this point.

 

[Azure]

You'll have no say in it, that's for certain.

Really? If we build a bunch of nuclear plants throughout North America, perhaps even the world...'we' could NOT make a difference in the long term?

What exactly are you trying to say?

In fact, some of my work of late has been in regards to wind power....is that not doing something for the future?

That's still not long-term. Not beyond the grandchildren's children, which is medium-term anyway.

To quote you...'perhaps actually less.' I love it when someone says yes, and the other person says no, and thats the end of it.

Perhaps actually less.

Know what I mean?

Of course. Which "WE" are you speaking for? What group does your "I" identify with?

I am a citizen of Alberta...it is our oil.

 

[Azure]

We are totally on the same page here, which is a bit surprising but not absolutely astonishing. On another thread on this very board, a member of the US nuclear engineering community pointed out that his company is turning work away because they can't handle what they've already got. That's because nobody is taking nuclear engineering classes in college, because a bunch of people who can't even spell it correctly can't find the difference in their minds between nucular bombs and nucular power, and think thousands of people died at Three Mile Island.

I don't even find it surprising that we're on the same side.

Good point though, I never realized that. I know here in Alberta the oil and gas industry, as well as the government is pushing for nuclear energy to extract the oil from the oilsands...and have been largely met by opposition not from the lack of nuclear engineers, but from the NIMBY crowd.

Your last comment might have more substance to it then we realize.

Again, you didn't quote the physics- and that means you can't answer them. I'll also point out that because of that very dearth of nuclear engineers I pointed out above, it's going to be ten years or more before the first post-AGW generation of nuclear plants comes on-line, and that generation will be much smaller than it should be. We need to do everything we can to reduce the problem before that; we have already waited a decade, the Arctic says we don't have another.

Well nuclear power isn't exactly the 'only' alternative source that exists.

'll tell you this: if you think nuclear energy is going to save our bacon all by itself, you're sadly mistaken. In the long term, it's absolutely the only way; and we need to be pursuing every avenue we can see toward fusion, as well (and currently we aren't). But we don't have a long term to wait for it. That's the problem.

So there is hysteria?

Come on...say a nuclear plant gets the go ahead tomorrow...for the sake of arguement....estimates I have read said 15-20 years to complete...are you saying if we continue on our present course(which we won't)...there won't be anyone left in 20 years to benefit from the nuclear power?

Is that not hysteria?

 

[mhaze]

because of that very dearth of nuclear engineers I pointed out above, it's going to be ten years or more before the first post-AGW generation of nuclear plants comes on-line, and that generation will be much smaller than it should be. We need to do everything we can to reduce the problem before that; we have already waited a decade, the Arctic says we don't have another.

I don't think I need to add anything to this.

It's also ten years away, and short on numbers of plants- basically, a day late and a dollar short unless we take other measures.

It's worth noting that the very companies that are capable of things like nuclear plant construction - Halliburton, Fluor Daniels, Brown and Root, etc. have a world wide order backlog that is historically unprecedented. There is no end in site to it, and it spans across all of this heavy industrial construction, particularly in the energy sector. I've heard numbers like a industry wide "trillion dollar backlog" quoted, and do not think they are exaggerated. The simple reason is that a billion dollar projects are not uncommon. So part of the adjustment process is going to be, like it or not, less qualified people in seriously important tasks and jobs.

For any younger people considering careers and jobs that may be reading this, that translates into real opportunity.

Well, while we are talking about these hypothetical plants.....they are not even in that trillion dollar order backlog pipeline......

 

[Azure]

For any younger people considering careers and jobs that may be reading this, that translates into real opportunity.

Perhaps the recent awareness towards global warming will push more people into that field.

As well as other alternative sources.

Sadly, I think the point Schneibster made about certain people equating nuclear energy with a nuclear bomb is VERY true.

 

[Schneibster]

For any younger people considering careers and jobs that may be reading this, that translates into real opportunity.

Be good at mathematics. That comes first. Then you can do the important stuff no one else can do. Please be out there and be listening.

 

[Schneibster]

I don't even find it surprising that we're on the same side.

I do. But there you have it. Our common conviction has led us to different perceptions of what's really going on, interestingly. But the most fascinating thing is, we've come to similar conclusions regarding what needs to be done.

I'd have said you were overoptimistic before this post. It appears you're almost as pessimistic as I, but for different reasons. NIMBYs are one thing; "environmentalists" who don't get that it's a housekeeping issue, not some sort of religious faith, are probably the most destructive force in this debate from my point of view.

Good point though, I never realized that. I know here in Alberta the oil and gas industry, as well as the government is pushing for nuclear energy to extract the oil from the oilsands...and have been largely met by opposition not from the lack of nuclear engineers, but from the NIMBY crowd.

Your last comment might have more substance to it then we realize.

Not me; I'm STILL pissed at Jane Fonda.

As far as the nuclear engineering-capable firms in this country having that much work, that at least is a hopeful sign. What we have to hope is that we don't get a bunch of half-assed nuclear engineers out of the schools. Or at least, if we do, they LISTEN to the people who've been doing it all their lives.

Well nuclear power isn't exactly the 'only' alternative source that exists.

True enough- but why not nip it at both ends? And if we do it right, we SAVE money to make up for that we can't earn.

In 1974, people cut back on gas, and bought efficient cars in droves. We can handle this.

So there is hysteria?

What hysteria? In ten or twenty years, it's going to start to get nasty in a lot of places. That makes wars. Had we started ten years ago, we'd be in fat city right now. As it is, we are, as I said, about to be a day late and a dollar short. And why is that? Because a bunch of people made politics about AGW instead of doing something about it. And because a bunch of other people made politics about nucular enurgy. Idiots, on both sides. And here we sit.

Come on...say a nuclear plant gets the go ahead tomorrow...for the sake of arguement....estimates I have read said 15-20 years to complete...are you saying if we continue on our present course(which we won't)...there won't be anyone left in 20 years to benefit from the nuclear power?

Is that not hysteria?

Did I say that? One thing I find irritating (and I'm serious, this is not an insult, if you heed this we'll get along much better) is that you impute extreme positions to people based on taking what they say out of context. You'll note that I only do this to you to be deliberately nasty. If you'll avoid this, so will I.

 

[Corsair 115]

In regards to the nuclear power issue, what is the consensus here on what Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has to say about it? I caught an episode of Charlie Rose some months back where Mr. Lovins was a guest discussing energy issues.

It was Mr. Lovins' position that nuclear energy was one of the worst choices in terms of cost-efficiency to pursue. Building a single nuclear plant is so expensive, and that money could be put to better use elsewhere. He also maintained that a potentially very important aspect in energy usage was getting little consideration these days, and that was energy efficiency. He pointed to studies done by the Institute that says there could be enormous gains made in making things far more energy efficient than they are currently.

Anyone have any thoughts or links or whatnot to share in regards to this?

Wolverine, I have never denied AGW...and if you took my comments that way, well it is my mistake.

For the record, I was getting the same impression from your earlier posts that Wolverine did. So there were at least two of us who were getting a mistaken impression of your position.

 

[Schneibster]

I take it with a grain of salt. Nuclear is generally shown to be the least expensive type of power generation next to wind power. And nuclear has to include the cost of exotic materials for the plant, the cost of waste disposal, and the cost of decommissioning and disposal of the plant, which no other power generation method is required to include. Coal fired plants literally spew their waste into the atmosphere and no cost is figured for it- but we all pay for it in taxes to pay for the people who get sick from it.

As far as what impression Azure created, I'd have to chime in as the third to Corsair and Wolverine.

 

[Wolverine]

Wolverine, I have never denied AGW...and if you took my comments that way, well it is my mistake.

It could be my bungle, and if so I sincerely apologize -- but it wasn't obvious to me before now. Thanks for your clarification.

My problem rests in the belief that global warming, or the recent trend is 'strictly' a man-made problem. Seems to me that seems to be the point most skeptical scientists are trying to say.

First, terms like "belief" and "prove" (two that have surfaced a few times in recent pages) have no place in a scientific discussion. Science isn't a belief system, nor does it go about "proving" things. Proofs are for mathematics and exercises in syllogistic logic; science is concerned with evidence (as others like varwoche have touched upon previously, but I'm not sure he elaborated enough for you to pick up on the significance). I don't express these as mere semantic or linguistic quibbles, but out of particular importance. Many folks harbor critical misconceptions about what science is and what the method does; use of inappropriate terminology unnecessarily muddles these waters, so I always encourage people accordingly.

Second, there's a significant body of evidence indicating precisely that (as has been posted previously). If you haven't already consulted it, you may find resources like Colby Beck's FAQ quite helpful and informative. Common misconceptions abound (and have surfaced repeatedly in this thread), but if you dedicate time to review these topics and familiarize yourself with the involved scientific research and methodologies, you'll greatly improve your understanding of them. I highly recommend spending a fair amount of time researching whatever such subjects you can from credible sources.

One comment bothered me..

This is all the more reason to more carefully scrutinize your sources. Those you've provided of late are not specifically too good. Citing articles which are trumpeted by intelligent design proponents, for example, should (usually) raise a big ol' red flag.

That seems a bit, to be blunt, stupid to me.

I'm sure a lot of wacky people are anti-war...does that mean I can't be anti-war because some idiot, like Ion is anti-war?

No, and I never suggested otherwise (although I have no idea who Ion is). I encouraged you to more carefully examine which materials and sources you're consulting. Check them more thoroughly for accuracy (e.g. Khilyuk & Chilingar, which, thankfully, I see you've agreed wasn't a valid citation; I'll revisit that later in the post), and don't be bashful about asking those more knowledgeable for assistance when you require it. There's a ton of incorrect information, misinformation, and disinformation in circulation on the 'net; sometimes it's not as easy as one might imagine to identify what's of quality and which is compost at best.

Does that mean I HAVE to believe that AGW is the 'sole' reason for global warming...you know, the most important one, because certain intelligent design people have sided themselves with that same side?

Of course not. You are not only welcome but enthusiastically encouraged to review the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming and accept it based upon its merits (again, this isn't a belief system). The more you read from credible sources, the more you understand the involved methodologies, observations, and research -- the higher the probability of you doing so.

By the way, and just to avoid any possible confusion -- let me explain this post just to be sure we're on the same page.

I laughed heartily at Dembski's comment "Global warming is important to the discussion over intelligent design because the same bag of tricks used to invalidate ID get used to invalidate criticism of man-made global warming. Certain sectors of science are notoriously corrupt, inventing threats and then setting themselves up as saviors so that anyone who resists their salvific efforts is branded as evil. This is an abuse of science, and UD will stand against it in whatever form it takes" specifically because the majority of anti-AGW arguments in design and structure eerily mirror those used by ardent supporters of ID and/or creationism. The similarities are truly spooky.

In other words, are you going to dismiss credible scientists because certain ID proponents happen to side with them?

Automatically? No. It would of course depend on the merit of their position or argument. Do be careful though -- credible scientists are not infallible. In this case, Reid Bryson is 86 years old. My intent is not to assail the man nor dismiss him based upon his age, but how current is he with published literature? His track record may be good, but his views are certainly not in line with the scientific consensus.

I'm sorry, but this is stupid.

If you manufacture your own strawmen, yes, it certainly appears so.

I agree that global warming is real, I agree that mankind plays a certain role in it, hence my belief in AGW, to a point....but my skeptical viewpoint is in regards to how BIG of a role mankind plays.

Again, please recall this isn't about "belief". Precisely how large a role mankind plays is still contested to a certain degree. Precisely what the ramifications will be is still a matter of debate, although the error bars are narrowing.

All my quotes are in regards of what I believe, and WHY I believe it. Sorry, but outside of you not liking that I don't agree with you, I really can't say much more here.

Sorry, but that's another strawman of your own construction. I would never be that brazen, particularly if the evidence indicated otherwise.

To me, it seems like you're doing the exact thing you accuse ME of doing.

That's not the case.

In fact, you like most others in this thread, have ignored for the most part those links I posted from MANY credible scientists regarding AGW...and how much a role it plays in global warming.

No, I have not. I've only recently addressed specific points you've raised, and at fair length. If you wish me to comment on a particular link you've provided, please address it to me in a reply.

In fact, as I read up on them, I noticed for the most part that many, if not all agree that mankind has contributed to global warming. Tell me, are they having a moment of select skepticism too?

No. Reading this, I'm not sure you understood my point. If you require clarification, please ask for it.

Now you see why that statement sounds so stupid? To be rather blunt.

No. In your haste to reply, you have not provided substantive commentary on this point. Sorry.

Again, I could be wrong here, but I think you're suffering from a case of confirmation bias.

What?
Confirmation bias? I am biased because I actually read the criticism regarding the IPCC report?

No. I'm not accusing you of being biased, I'm suggesting you've fallen prey to confirmation bias based upon your recent behavior and coupled with the content of your posts. Are you familiar with the phrase?

I'm fueled by politics because I don't agree with you?

No. I never suggested such. Your posts appear (primarily) politically fueled because you commonly focus on political arguments (e.g. Kyoto) and related rhetoric rather than scientific topics.

Are all those scientists fueled by politics too?

Apologies, but this is another irrelevant point which you've turned into a strawman argument. I've never stated any such thing.

Yes, I will admit that I only glanced that the rebuttal towards the peer-reviewed article I posted...but given the fact that it IS a peer-reviewed article, I didn't read much more into it. So yes, that article probably wasn't a good source.

Thank you for looking at it more closely. Do you now understand why it looked rather silly to other readers for you to have berated varwoche over a source which you now agree does not withstand scrutiny? You went through a few contortions before you made this concession -- and I appreciate that you did, don't get me wrong, but the manner in which you went about it was less than... forthcoming.

But I find it funny that you dismiss every other source I posted.

I didn't. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to Khilyuk & Chilingar and Bryson in particular based on the context I used.

In fact, I find it strange that you hold me accountable to not responding too a post...I read it, read the blog, learned something...yet, not you, nor ANY one else here, has responded to 'one' claim made by certain credible scientists in regards to global warming.

Huh? Please be careful, again, with attributing arguments to me which I never made.

What issues do you consider open? To which points do you feel you've not been provided with satisfactory replies? I openly admit not being an expert on this subject, nor do I play one on JREF. However, if there's an issue in particular that I can help with, please let me know. If not, I'll state upfront that I'm not well-versed enough to follow up -- perhaps others would then be willing to address these concerns of yours.

Of course I realize you're not fueled by politics, and your concern for the environment is above ALL else, but if you're going to hold me accountable to respond to EVERY post citing a rebuttal to something I posted(which is fair)...why haven't you responded to 'one' claim, from 'one' scientist.

Excuse me? Please spare me the hyperbole.

Speaking of hypocritical....

In fact, everything I posted was largely ignored.

Select skepticism indeed.

Nice to know the double standard is alive and well.

These little barbs are unnecessary and unbecoming. Are you interested in an informative discussion, or do you solely wish to joust verbally?

Seriously, if you're interested in dialogue, let's have one and abandon the empty rhetoric. Is that fair enough?

 

[Wolverine]

As far as what impression Azure created, I'd have to chime in as the third to Corsair and Wolverine.

Thanks, to both of you.

 

[Wolverine]

Colby Beck

Grr, Coby Beck. Sorry about the boneheaded typo.

 

[mhaze]

In regards to the nuclear power issue, what is the consensus here on what Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has to say about it? I caught an episode of Charlie Rose some months back where Mr. Lovins was a guest discussing energy issues.

He's pushing the products and services of his consulting firm, of course. And they do have some innovative approaches. Although their claim that they will double the fuel efficiency of Walmart's long haul truck fleet is questionable - if so, wouldn't all the indepedent truck owners like to know that magic trick?

It was Mr. Lovins' position that nuclear energy was one of the worst choices in terms of cost-efficiency to pursue. Building a single nuclear plant is so expensive, and that money could be put to better use elsewhere.

These arguments do exist, but among people who really study this stuff - a good example is people working for city utilities who *must* decide on capital investments for future energy for the people they serve - among these types of people, such arguments are bogus.

If you go on the internet and google nuclear power, you will find as much or more nonsense as if you googled abortion. Going from memory the numbers I recall were 2.7 cents (wholesale) for nuclear and something like 4-6 cents per kw hour for coal and gas. Of course these numbers include capital plant amortization costs and reasonable estimates for waste disposal. I am not sure it fits in this thread to debunk the various anti-nuclear arguments or the anti nuclear "higher cost" arguments, but the simple answer is that this is the cheap energy and has zero emissions - that makes nuclear "the good stuff".

Cost analysis and economic theory really really bore a lot of people, but I would like to make one comment - that what is almost always going on with political arguments pro or for on an economic basis is that selective factors are left out, misstated or overstated. As an example, costs of nuclear plants are said to misstate eventual costs of waste disposal. Well guess what? Costs of coal fire power plants do not include mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions. Costs of windmill power are pretty good, some say. But they forget to include the government subsidies. Etc. Even having digressed, still, reasonable numbers and analysis abound, it just tends to get buried under all the propaganda on a first look.

He also maintained that a potentially very important aspect in energy usage was getting little consideration these days, and that was energy efficiency. He pointed to studies done by the Institute that says there could be enormous gains made in making things far more energy efficient than they are currently.

I think he is completely wrong. As an example, the theme of the last national architects convention was "going green". Another example, the ICSC convention (shopping centers) a month ago had an entire exhibit hall section devoted to these concepts. So at large international meetings of people who are going to "build our tommorrow" these issues are a central subject.