Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

[VtaGeezer]

Thus climate change denial joins the honored company of remote viewing, Bigfoot, galactic consciousness, time travel, chemtrails and turmeric.  When George embraces it you know it's a crock.

[pate]

agreed, until flaming metoers or icebergs from whichever pole I live on grind my face to dust, I will agree, this whole alarmism is an exploded argument.

You want a gradual change in the climate we have experienced in the past two hundred years plus or minus a small percentage of those years, I'll listen to you, but meanwhile I'll listen to Ebola frightening up my back yard a bit closer...

When I read the Bible, I didn't think it meant vast catastrophes that took out every one around me, I figured it meant the silent knife in the back!  Who knows the time?  Knife in the back as in "trust no one" seems reasonable to me...

Who knows, the Bible tells me that I for sure will not, even if I take up the sword to defend you, by the act of touching a sword I am doomed to die by it...  Logic after all... 

You can quote me on that, and reading it just now, nope makes no sense, so logic is out the window.

Why am I angry?  Why am I upset?  Who cares?  I am the sole owner of whatever I say, type, write or do,  What concern is it to anyone else?

[136 or 142]

Regarding last night's guest
1.He complains that no 'skeptics' were put on some panel. Noory doesn't say anything, but I'd note that he never puts on any of the vast majority of climate scientists who believe in AGW.  To be fair, Noory's show is all about 'alternative theories'.

2.The guest mentioned the 'Heartland Institute' over and over again. From wiki (not the best site, but anyway) "In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms."  Same as the Fraser Institute here in Canada. Anyway, the Fraser Institute is under new management.

3.The guest claimed that Roger Revelle repudiated his views on AGW. That is a lie. Roger's daughter, Carolyn Revelle, wrote:
Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" Roger Revelleâ€"our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effectâ€"remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991.

That's from relistening to the first hour. 

[136 or 142]

This is from the Scientific American article on the consensus of climate scientists believing in the reality of AGW:

"Denswei July 24, 2014, 11:22 AM
Kudos to Cook et al for wisely considering the eventual impact of their research paper! Many a scientists have published mundane & routine work only to face unexpected attack on purely ideological grounds (studying corkscrew duck p****es come to mind as another example). Often much grief can be averted by a more careful (& diplomatic) choice of wording and anticipation of criticism."

Thanks to Dave Schraeder's excellent show with that biologist author of "Nature is Trying to Kill You" I know that the censored word is 'penises' I wonder did the author censor that word or did "Scientific American".

BTW, the originator of the phrase 'climate change', Frank Luntz, now believes that AGW is real and is a serious problem.

[Yorkshire pud]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29855884

The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100 if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in a stark report that most of the world's electricity can - and must - be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050.

If not, the world faces "severe, pervasive and irreversible" damage.

The UN said inaction would cost "much more" than taking the necessary action.

The IPCC's Synthesis Report was published on Sunday in Copenhagen, after a week of intense debate between scientists and government officials.

It is intended to inform politicians engaged in attempts to deliver a new global treaty on climate by the end of 2015.

The report says that reducing emissions is crucial if global warming is to be limited to 2C - a target acknowledged in 2009 as the threshold of dangerous climate change.

The report suggests renewables will have to grow from their current 30% share to 80% of the power sector by 2050.

In the longer term, the report states that fossil fuel power generation without carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology would need to be "phased out almost entirely by 2100".

The Synthesis Report summarises three previous reports from the IPCC, which outlined the causes, the impacts and the potential solutions to climate change.

It re-states many familiar positions:

Warming is "unequivocal" and the human influence on climate is clear
The period from 1983 to 2012, it says, was likely the warmest 30 year period of the last 1,400 years
Warming impacts are already being seen around the globe, in the acidification of the oceans, the melting of arctic ice and poorer crop yields in many parts
Without concerted action on carbon, temperatures will increase over the coming decades and could be almost 5C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century
"Science has spoken," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side."

That last line? We're told on here that the politicians are driving the climatology science. Odd then that the same politicians are generally disregarding it...

Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University, a member of the IPCC core writing team, said: "We can't afford to burn all the fossil fuels we have without dealing with the waste product which is CO2 and without dumping it in the atmosphere."

"If we can't develop carbon capture we will have to stop using fossil fuels if we want to stop dangerous climate change."

line

He's only a professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

[SciFiAuthor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29855884


That last line? We're told on here that the politicians are driving the climatology science. Odd then that the same politicians are generally disregarding it...



He's only a professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

York, I've been trying to articulate this for some time now and I don't mean this in any way as an attack on you, but rather a discourse between two people that know a bit about technology. Climate change, whether carbon dioxide is at levels high enough to appreciably change the climate or is still below the threshold for appreciable change doesn't really matter. Take a look at the terms they're putting that in, fossil fuel use must stop by 2100.

And take a look at the current state of technology that didn't make the major news media:

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

It is inherently possible, and I wouldn't say this if it wasn't coming from Lockheed's Skunkworks, that fossil fuels will be phased out by 2050 or less and we will have clean, cheap, production fusion energy as early as ten years from now. Only a few months ago I was telling everyone it would be 35 years before we hit useable fusion through ITER and that would eliminate fossil fuels, and even then we'd have that in worldwide use by 2100. Well, now, Lockheed's telling us that it's actually ten years, and they whipped it out on us seemingly out of nowhere.

The game has changed and it hasn't quite filtered out through the media yet, but tech is simply moving faster than climate change and media-driven activism realizes and it will be a solved problem by the time we get to the crunch point. One of the reasons for this is that the old technological hard hitters such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, IBM etc. did not just disappear, but rather continued to develop very advanced, high technology that isn't openly announced until they know they are beyond their competitor's ability to develop it faster than the competitor can have it to market in response. It's a different model from a windmill company seeking seed money by presenting an idea and fishing for funds, which is what everyone's been focused on for the last decade. As a result, 2100? Pffft, easy. We'll have it done by 2050 because we have engineers as well as alarmists in this world.

[Yorkshire pud]

We'll have it done by 2050 because we have engineers as well as alarmists in this world.

I sincerely hope you're right. I think it's eminently possible, it depends on the will to do it world wide.

[Jackstar]

Well, now, Lockheed's telling us that it's actually ten years, and they whipped it out on us seemingly out of nowhere.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

It is inherently possible, and I wouldn't say this if it wasn't coming from Lockheed's Skunkworks, that fossil fuels will be phased out by 2050 or less and we will have clean, cheap, production fusion energy as early as ten years from now.

A few points: first, I've heard conflicting things about this discovery.  The media is all over it, of course, basically reporting what Lockheed feeds to them.  However, other people doing fusion research seem skeptical of it. 

Second, the utility companies aren't going to give this stuff away.  They're going to make as much money as they can, making it competitive with fossil fuels, but not at a drastic discount.  I'm fairly sure that's how it will work with PG&E, who have been raping the Bay Area for years under a chummy relationship with the PUC.

Third, isn't the USA the world's largest producer of fossil fuels?  What would it mean to the economy to have it all shut down?

I doubt this is something that any of us will see in our lifetimes.

[Jackstar]

I doubt this is something that any of us will see in our lifetimes.

[SciFiAuthor]

I sincerely hope you're right. I think it's eminently possible, it depends on the will to do it world wide.

I think the will is there, we all want clean energy. More importantly, I think the profit potential is there which is why Lockheed is all over it. They could shift the entire revenue of the oil, natural gas and coal markets to their reactor technology.

[Jackstar]

I think the will is there, we all want clean energy. More importantly, I think the profit potential is there which is why Lockheed is all over it. They could shift the entire revenue of the oil, natural gas and coal markets to their reactor technology.

Rockefellers to switch investments to 'clean energy'

Rockefeller Brothers Fund director Stephen Heintz said the move to divest from fossil fuels would be in line with oil tycoon John D Rockefeller's wishes,

"We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy," Mr Heintz said in a statement.
A general view shows the plenary session at the Bella Center of Copenhagen on 19 December 2009 at the end of the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference. The last major conference on climate change, in Copenhagen in 2009, ended without results.

The philanthropic organisation was founded in 1940 by the sons of John D Rockefeller. As of 31 July 2014, the fund's investment assets were worth $860m.

"There is a moral imperative to preserve a healthy planet," Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, a great-great-granddaughter of Mr Rockefeller and a trustee of the fund, is quoted by the Washington Post as saying.

A climate change summit is due to start on Tuesday at the UN headquarters in New York, with 125 heads of state and government members expected to attend.

It is the first such gathering since the unsuccessful climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009.

[SciFiAuthor]

A few points: first, I've heard conflicting things about this discovery.  The media is all over it, of course, basically reporting what Lockheed feeds to them.  However, other people doing fusion research seem skeptical of it.

*I* would be skeptical of it if were coming from a startup company or some corporation that needed to boost its stock trading value. But it's not, it's Lockheed. They wouldn't be announcing this if they hadn't done initial experiments that proved the basics of the tech before going public with it.

Second, the utility companies aren't going to give this stuff away.  They're going to make as much money as they can, making it competitive with fossil fuels, but not at a drastic discount.  I'm fairly sure that's how it will work with PG&E, who have been raping the Bay Area for years under a chummy relationship with the PUC.

True, but market forces apply. If you can undercut oil and gas, well, you can undercut oil and gas and make some bucks. It won't be a drastic discount at first, I'm sure the reactors will be really expensive, but you do live in a world where we'll build enormous wind farms in Illinois without any real hope of them actually working because Federal funds have been poured into it. I live in fly-over country, Missouri, under a coop that cuts me a check occasionally for overcharging, so you know, maybe California fucked up in how it deals with electrical energy. Rolling blackouts and all. Doesn't happen here.

Third, isn't the USA the world's largest producer of fossil fuels?  What would it mean to the economy to have it all shut down?

We weren't the largest producer until fracking, before that we were all talking about becoming independent of oil, but that said, Lockheed Martin is an American company. You either want the fossil fuel question fixed, or you don't.

I doubt this is something that any of us will see in our lifetimes.

Then why have liberals been pushing alternate energy for the last decade and forcing us to cover Illinois with wind farms? Obviously the wind farm push worked, so what the fuck is in the way of fusion?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

*I* would be skeptical of it if were coming from a startup company or some corporation that needed to boost its stock trading value. But it's not, it's Lockheed. They wouldn't be announcing this if they hadn't done initial experiments that proved the basics of the tech before going public with it.

Pons and Fleishmann were respected scientists in the field and had supposedly done experiments, as well as writing a technical paper.  Oops.  Besides the outright fuckups, things sometimes look promising but never reach commercial viability.  You sound like a young fella, so you probably don't remember, but in the mid-80's the media was on fire about the breakthrough in superconductivity.  There was similar blue-sky articles from the fucking media, rhapsodizing about the Brave New World that this discovery portended.  Except, it didn't happen.  The new materials were ceramics, not metals, which limited them to boutique applications.  No one ever figured out, conclusively, how to build on that breakthrough and apply it to create a ductile material.  I certainly hope that this breakthrough is real, but when I see an enormous step function in technology, and the experts in that field expressing doubt about it, I feel the need to tap on the brakes.  Maybe it's a done deal.  Maybe not.

True, but market forces apply.

Oh, yes, "market forces," the libertarian u-joint that answers every problem.  Unfortunately, there's not really a market -- there's only one supplier, which is why they operate as "public utilities," under the alleged oversight of a commission to keep them honest.  Here where I live, there isn't any oversight.  PG&E asked for a rate increase to upgrade gas pipelines, then used the money to give bonuses to their executives instead.  Then a gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, killing 8 people, destroying a neighborhood, and maiming dozens of others.  The President of the PUC, which is supposed to oversee PG&E, is HELPING them shop around for a judge friendly to PG&E in the pending litigation.  Four years later, people have still not received settlements from PG&E for their losses. 

PG&E also spent $42 million dollars trying to pass a State Proposal that would have barred any other companies from competing in their domain -- not exactly something that promotes "market forces."  PG&E may be the worst of the lot, but I don't believe that the industry is run by Boy Scouts.

As for cost basis, look at solar panels.  Free electricity!  Except the amortized cost of the hardware is (slightly) more than what you pay from the power companies.  What a coincidence!  You would have thought market forces would fix that, since there really IS a market in that case, but for some reason they haven't.  Nobody is going to be able to afford to buy one of these truckbed fusion reactors and stick it in their backyard, much less be able to operate it.  It will be the utilities that do that, and they are NOT going to quietly give up their profits.  There's no "market forces" to compel them to do so, and the fucking PUC is less than worthless in that regard.

You either want the fossil fuel question fixed, or you don't.

Of course I do, but how is this going to fix it?  The first application will be to replace oil-fired generators -- great.  Reduces consumption, and help pollution.  Two thumbs up.  What then?  The overwhelming fraction of usage is in automobiles.  No one has solved the drawbacks to electric vehicle use, the most daunting of which is vastly constrained range and vastly increased time to "fill the tank."  Electric vehicle sales for consumers are a tiny fraction of total car sales and have flatlined.  Even assuming that those mythical market forces somehow save the day, we need to have electric cars that people will buy preferentially over gas-powered automobiles.  And we don't.

Then why have liberals been pushing alternate energy for the last decade and forcing us to cover Illinois with wind farms? Obviously the wind farm push worked, so what the fuck is in the way of fusion?

Responding to the second question, alternative energy is a niche industry that is not cost competitive with current energy supply methods.  Fusion, in the way you describe it, would vastly transform society, obsoleting entire sections of the economy.  That is not something that can take place in a short amount of time, nor, I would argue, should it do so.  It should be a benefit to society and not social upheaval.

As to the first question, let me be clear: I'm completely in favor of pursuing alternate energy, including fusion.  If it takes 10 years or 100 years, we should start right now.  I am optimistic that fusion is the most promising alternative.  I simply don't buy the idea that it will produce unlimited, cheap energy.  The people who are in control of energy now will make sure of that, to their benefit.  It would take a transformation of our values as a society to do otherwise, and that's not something that will happen in a generation either. 

Furthermore, I would solidly support fusion even if it ended up costing somewhat more then fossil fuels, or even if we achieved only a partial reduction in the use of fossil fuels.  Once we no longer need to buy oil from the Middle East, no one is going to give two fucks about that shithole.  We'll never need to send troops over there to die.  We won't have to spend umpty trillion dollars fighting wars over there, so even if the cost of fusion is more than fossil fuels, on a per capita basis we will come out ahead.  Israel will do fine, so long as we give them money and some guns every now and then.  They fight their own wars.  We could get the fuck out of Dodge and jesus fucking christ would THAT ever be a relief.

You and I are on the same side on this thing, we just see it unfolding differently.  C'mere and let me pinch your ass, you goddamn neocon.

[SciFiAuthor]

Pons and Fleishmann were respected scientists in the field and had supposedly done experiments, as well as writing a technical paper.  Oops.  Besides the outright fuckups, things sometimes look promising but never reach commercial viability.  You sound like a young fella, so you probably don't remember, but in the mid-80's the media was on fire about the breakthrough in superconductivity.  There was similar blue-sky articles from the fucking media, rhapsodizing about the Brave New World that this discovery portended.  Except, it didn't happen.  The new materials were ceramics, not metals, which limited them to boutique applications.  No one ever figured out, conclusively, how to build on that breakthrough and apply it to create a ductile material.  I certainly hope that this breakthrough is real, but when I see an enormous step function in technology, and the experts in that field expressing doubt about it, I feel the need to tap on the brakes.  Maybe it's a done deal.  Maybe not.

I'm actually a middle-aged former government aerospace contractor. But yeah, your point is valid, however, cold fusion had no mechanism of action really. That's the difference. It was a claim from nowhere without any actual basis provided for how it could work. Hot fusion is not, we do it now and know how it works already, and even produced a net gain last year in a government lab. We're funding ITER which promised to be the precursor to a functioning fusion reactor prototype for commercial power generation. We're not talking about a cold fusion debacle, but rather a shortcut to the tech through a breakthrough in plasma geometry and containment that must be mature enough at Skunkworks to risk Boeing or a startup seizing the opportunity and building it faster with a little bit different design. Again, this is not a start up company or a claim from some researchers, this is a call to arms for the entire energy industry because of Lockheed's set to kick the entire industry's ass. Whether someone pays Lockheed to put it on the back burner, well, that's another matter entirely. But if they'll go that far with a claim, then you can bet that they are confident that they have the major hurdles already solved.

Oh, yes, "market forces," the libertarian u-joint that answers every problem.  Unfortunately, there's not really a market -- there's only one supplier, which is why they operate as "public utilities," under the alleged oversight of a commission to keep them honest.  Here where I live, there isn't any oversight.  PG&E asked for a rate increase to upgrade gas pipelines, then used the money to give bonuses to their executives instead.  Then a gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, killing 8 people, destroying a neighborhood, and maiming dozens of others.  The President of the PUC, which is supposed to oversee PG&E, is HELPING them shop around for a judge friendly to PG&E in the pending litigation.  Four years later, people have still not received settlements from PG&E for their losses.

Yeah, that shit doesn't happen here. Your system is fucked somewhere along the line. I'd vote for the guy that will fix it and ignore political affiliations, that's all I can really offer there. What's Moonbeam doing about it?

PG&E also spent $42 million dollars trying to pass a State Proposal that would have barred any other companies from competing in their domain -- not exactly something that promotes "market forces."  PG&E may be the worst of the lot, but I don't believe that the industry is run by Boy Scouts.

Well, ya know, if you've got a crooked power company and some guy from a red state is suggesting that you might have your overwhelmingly left wing political system do something about it, then you might try it. Our non-co-op power giant Ameren Missouri is subject to Federal and State regulatory oversight here. Why is yours getting away with murder?

As for cost basis, look at solar panels.  Free electricity!  Except the amortized cost of the hardware is (slightly) more than what you pay from the power companies.  What a coincidence!  You would have thought market forces would fix that, since there really IS a market in that case, but for some reason they haven't.  Nobody is going to be able to afford to buy one of these truckbed fusion reactors and stick it in their backyard, much less be able to operate it.  It will be the utilities that do that, and they are NOT going to quietly give up their profits.  There's no "market forces" to compel them to do so, and the fucking PUC is less than worthless in that regard.

At 100 megawatts output, it's not an individual affair but a civic one. That's basically about 80 windmills. This is a civic power generation possibility, rather than some guy putting one out in the shed. It's also an enormous market for L-M, one that could shift the current oil and coal revenues to fusion and profit L-M them enormously. In fact, it could be one of the biggest profit takes through an industry shift in human history. It could also economically blow away the power companies as they realize that a drop in energy cost coincident with a larger drop in production cost would mean an immediate and immense increase in profits without running afoul of regulations on rates. That's not even getting into government subsidy for the technology, which is even cleaner than a windmill.

Of course I do, but how is this going to fix it?  The first application will be to replace oil-fired generators -- great.  Reduces consumption, and help pollution.  Two thumbs up.  What then?  The overwhelming fraction of usage is in automobiles.  No one has solved the drawbacks to electric vehicle use, the most daunting of which is vastly constrained range and vastly increased time to "fill the tank."  Electric vehicle sales for consumers are a tiny fraction of total car sales and have flatlined.  Even assuming that those mythical market forces somehow save the day, we need to have electric cars that people will buy preferentially over gas-powered automobiles.  And we don't.

Automobiles must give up oil. They must become electric. That's already clear. While electric cars still suck, it would be a horrifically bad bet to make that they will still suck in ten years. That's like saying in 1998 that desktop computers cannot ever be superceded and not investing in miniaturization. Well, you now live in a world of cellphones and tablets.

Responding to the second question, alternative energy is a niche industry that is not cost competitive with current energy supply methods.  Fusion, in the way you describe it, would vastly transform society, obsoleting entire sections of the economy.  That is not something that can take place in a short amount of time, nor, I would argue, should it do so.  It should be a benefit to society and not social upheaval.

Actually, you're going to get assaulted by technology moving faster than current social systems and politics can handle from here on out. The shit's moving faster than it used to, and society is totally unprepared for it. I mean, come on. Last year quasi-anarchist Cody Wilson released a functional handgun that can be printed by anyone with a 3d printer, and he gave it out free, openly available on the internet, and well before regulatory or governmental authority could even conceive that such a thing could happen. The cat came out of the bag before anyone knew there was a cat. As 3d printers become more widespread, the repercussions of that act will be come infinitely more evident and our debates about gun rights will be rendered obsolete. When Wilson did that, he went on Glenn Beck's show and Beck had no clue how to deal with the guy, even as a pro-gun conservative. Beck suddenly looked like a liberal. Libs don't have a way to deal with it either other than to make some token retroactive bans. Hell, I was dumbfounded and loaded with misgivings about being able to print out a gun at will and I'm as pro-gun as you can get. So yeah, technology will now move faster than we can come up with ways to fight about it. We, as liberals and conservatives, are going obsolete.

As to the first question, let me be clear: I'm completely in favor of pursuing alternate energy, including fusion.  If it takes 10 years or 100 years, we should start right now.  I am optimistic that fusion is the most promising alternative.  I simply don't buy the idea that it will produce unlimited, cheap energy.  The people who are in control of energy now will make sure of that, to their benefit.  It would take a transformation of our values as a society to do otherwise, and that's not something that will happen in a generation either.

Well, that's what I'm saying. We will have alternate energy faster than we thought and in ten years we'll all be standing around looking like asses for ever having debated it. I think we're already on the cusp of a transformation of our values as a society and I don't think the rules of the 20th century and how technology progresses apply any more. It's a brave new world where the speed of technological development outstrips human ability to adjust to it with our current thinking.

Furthermore, I would solidly support fusion even if it ended up costing somewhat more then fossil fuels, or even if we achieved only a partial reduction in the use of fossil fuels.  Once we no longer need to buy oil from the Middle East, no one is going to give two fucks about that shithole.  We'll never need to send troops over there to die.  We won't have to spend umpty trillion dollars fighting wars over there, so even if the cost of fusion is more than fossil fuels, on a per capita basis we will come out ahead.  Israel will do fine, so long as we give them money and some guns every now and then.  They fight their own wars.  We could get the fuck out of Dodge and jesus fucking christ would THAT ever be a relief.

I'm glad you're for fusion. So am I. It's a great idea, who gives a fuck about opinions on climate change. Let's make a great and wonderful world where energy is cheap and easy to obtain. I hope Lockheed does it, and I think you share that sentiment.  So why have leftwing activists been protesting ITER? Greenpeace opposes it. Is the left going to cook up some anti-fusion bullshit based on the human race not needing unlimited power because that would allow unlimited human expansion at the cost of the environment? I mean, what I can expect from you guys here?

You and I are on the same side on this thing, we just see it unfolding differently.  C'mere and let me pinch your ass, you goddamn neocon.

Well, you can pinch my ass, but don't expect a boner over it. That put soundly aside, I'm not really a neocon or a conservative, but rather a republican-libertarian. I don't give a fuck if gay people get married, so what if consenting adults pursue happiness? That's none of my business, so do it with my blessing. I won't get in their way. Likewise I won't say global warming isn't occurring, carbon dioxide is a provable greenhouse gas, but I also won't fall for media sensationalism and the "we're all gonna die!" mentality of political liberalism. Instead I think we all need to rethink our politics, and I suspect technology will force us to in the coming years. Hell, the future may not be so hellish and dystopian as we all think it will be. We might end up ok. But what's clear is that it will happen faster than we think.