One of the few remaining credible climate change skeptics changes views

Wait, the 2 degrees statistic is in Celsius?

No wonder Americans haven't gotten on board with climate change yet. If you're going to drill a statistic into people's brains, use the standard they know!

I think that's the common thing among climate scientist because it's universal and easier to crunch the numbers. How many people in Europe or Asia use Fahrenheit? It could also be because 2 degrees Celsius sounds less intimidating than what it converts too (C * 1.8) + 32 in Fahrenheit.

In the USA we'd see about +5 f in most places with the odd +10 f in a few areas. So instead of 100 f it would probably average of 105 f during the summer in the Midwest. Death Valley could go much higher.
 
It could also be because 2 degrees Celsius sounds less intimidating than what it converts too (C * 1.8) + 32 in Fahrenheit.
That's exactly my point. When climate scientists get their soundbite they often push 2 degrees, when they should be saying 5 to 10!
 
irritable statement of contempt towards moderators

series of anecdotes about supposed moderator bias

condescending "when I was your age" old person pat-on-the-head that doesn't actually address the topic
Bend over backward attempt to display our common ground, ending post with forced regular smiley, making self look even lamer while simultaneous eliciting silent thank God it's over, only for me to pick the same fight with your fellow partisan.

That's exactly my point. When climate scientists get their soundbite they often push 2 degrees, when they should be saying 5 to 10!
Yeah, I was assuming they meant in F just for the sake of American audiences. I'm getting too old to bother checking. At some point I started rounding 9.99 down to 9 dollars when I don't catch myself. I'm skimming too much.
 
Oh. I got the message. Your useless lefty twit friends have no clue what someone actually said. It doesn't surprise me in the least.

How do you reconcile the twit's words with what he has actually said about what he thinks?

Moderator Action: Take another week timeout. Apparently the last one wasn't enough to drive the message home. Regards, Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

You know what's funny? The automatic assumption that everyone I was talking about was a "lefty". If the jury turned in a not guilty declaration he'd announce the sentence anyway and not even blink. The narrative is already constructed.
 
You know, when Christians tell me they want me to convert to save my soul from hellfire at death, I don't think of them as 'nuts'. They have a genuine, albiet misguided, concern for me.

When climate change believers say they don't want the homes of climate change skeptics to be flooded out, or their children to end up starving due to major droughts, or any other terrible consequence of global warming to happen to them, why do they get labled 'nuts'?

Yeah skeptics, I'm sorry I trust in the scientific process, and I'm sorry I firmly don't want anything bad to happen to you as a result of global warming. Sorry I want to try and find ways to fix global warming so these bad things can't happen. I'll just keep being a 'nut' I guess.:(
 
That's exactly my point. When climate scientists get their soundbite they often push 2 degrees, when they should be saying 5 to 10!

When addressing the issue where people normally use Fahrenheit I totally agree. Where people normally use Celsius they would probably be confused. Most scientist use Celsius for calculations on climate studies. It's a universally accepted standard.
 
When addressing the issue where people normally use Fahrenheit I totally agree. Where people normally use Celsius they would probably be confused. Most scientist use Celsius for calculations on climate studies. It's a universally accepted standard.

Or Kelvin, which is actually the official SI temperature measurement scale.

Edit: I suspect they use Kelvin then translate it to celsius for the average guy.
 
Or Kelvin, which is actually the official SI temperature measurement scale.

Edit: I suspect they use Kelvin then translate it to celsius for the average guy.

Temperatures will rise 2 degrees.
Celcius or Kelvin?
:wallbash:
 
Mueller's solution is to switch to "clean fracking" technology for natural gas. If you've seen the documentary Gasland you know that's not going to work as a long term solution.

http://www.economist.com/node/21556249

Fracking great
The promised gas revolution can do the environment more good than harm

There was a very large and detailed report on shale gas and fracking in the Economist a couple weeks back and although they are the first major publication I read on the matter, they argued their case reasonably well regarding the 'cons' of fracking.
The scenes shown in Gasland can be prevented.

But the risks from shale gas can be managed. Properly concreted well-shafts do not leak; regurgitants can be collected and made safe; preventing gas venting and flaring would limit methane emissions to acceptable levels; and the risk of tremors, which commonly occur as a result of conventional oil-and-gas activities, can be contained by careful monitoring. The IEA estimates that such measures would add 7% to the cost of the average shale-gas well. That is a small price to pay for environmental protection and the health of a promising industry.

For as well as posing environmental risks, a gas boom would bring an important environmental benefit. Burning gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal; so where gas substitutes for coal, emissions will fall. America's emissions have fallen by 450m tonnes in the past five years, more than any other country's. Ironically, given its far greater effort to tackle climate change, the European Union has seen its emissions rise, partly because of an increase in coal-fired power generation in response to Europe's high gas price.

Look at how much physical damage is actually caused by fracking.



It's a good way to lower emissions and exist as a transitional energy source as renewable and 'green' resources are being stabilised.
 
There was a very large and detailed report on shale gas and fracking in the Economist a couple weeks back and although they are the first major publication I read on the matter, they argued their case reasonably well regarding the 'cons' of fracking. The scenes shown in Gasland can be prevented.

It's a good way to lower emissions and exist as a transitional energy source as renewable and 'green' resources are being stabilised.

I think what's going to make it difficult for people is all the mistakes made by unsafe fracking that did result in the contamination of ground water. Had they began with making sure every gas well was safe then people wouldn't have such a big problem with it.

Most of the people who want to do Fracking are the same type of people who could care less about the environment. They mainly want to get rich quick. Not exactly the most trustworthy when it comes to making sure it's safe.

I'll keep an open-mind on the subject but at this point I still favor a big effort to build up renewable energy and increase energy efficiency over fracking.

Imagine if we put as much productivity into renewable energy as we do with military weapons and equipment for fighting wars.
 
[

Look at how much physical damage is actually caused by fracking.



It's a good way to lower emissions and exist as a transitional energy source as renewable and 'green' resources are being stabilised.

try showing a photo of the water table used by the farmers which sits above the gas layer.... fracking may be good or bad long term.... its just not taken into account with most environmental studies... especially when your neighbors start fracking with your water table
 
Trillions of dollars in fixed investment destroyed. Billions of people forced to relocate. 1000s of species made extinct. Just as a start....

Change is inevitable. Do you expect Earth to remain a constant? Yes superpowers will fall (the U.S. most likely will turn into a giant dust bowl), and others may emerge. But that's been going on for thousands of years already.

Money is worthless. Only a greedy person would care about money.

The extinction event is more worrisome. Some species crucial to human survival may go extinct, and humans may go extinct. But what makes us so special? It seems inevitable that humans should go extinct. I don't really see a problem with humans going extinct. The Earth will live on, and more resilient species will survive. Survival of the fittest after all. And humans just aren't fit.
 
Look at how much physical damage is actually caused by fracking.



It's a good way to lower emissions and exist as a transitional energy source as renewable and 'green' resources are being stabilised.

C'mon, man - this is completely disingenuous! You're trying to equate the surface footprint of a *single well* with the totality of subterranean effects from fracking an entire geological stratum?!

That said, I'm not at all against natural gas as a transitional fuel (as others have pointed out).

But there's no reason at all to rush headlong into full-fledged fracking, which is what the pro-fracking cheerleaders advocate. Why aren't they using the same 'caution' and 'desire for better research and study' that they demand of global warming solutions?

MONEY.
 
Change is inevitable. Do you expect Earth to remain a constant? Yes superpowers will fall (the U.S. most likely will turn into a giant dust bowl), and others may emerge. But that's been going on for thousands of years already.

Money is worthless. Only a greedy person would care about money.

The extinction event is more worrisome. Some species crucial to human survival may go extinct, and humans may go extinct. But what makes us so special? It seems inevitable that humans should go extinct. I don't really see a problem with humans going extinct. The Earth will live on, and more resilient species will survive. Survival of the fittest after all. And humans just aren't fit.

Ah, well ... if you don't care about species dying and people being poorer than they need to be, then I guess climate change isn't really a problem.
 
Change is inevitable. Do you expect Earth to remain a constant? Yes superpowers will fall (the U.S. most likely will turn into a giant dust bowl), and others may emerge. But that's been going on for thousands of years already.

Money is worthless. Only a greedy person would care about money.

The extinction event is more worrisome. Some species crucial to human survival may go extinct, and humans may go extinct. But what makes us so special? It seems inevitable that humans should go extinct. I don't really see a problem with humans going extinct. The Earth will live on, and more resilient species will survive. Survival of the fittest after all. And humans just aren't fit.

Ever read the Unabomber's manifesto? ;)

Luckily for the rest of us, we actually care about fellow human beings and want to see policies that would minimize suffering.
 
Change is inevitable. Do you expect Earth to remain a constant? Yes superpowers will fall (the U.S. most likely will turn into a giant dust bowl), and others may emerge. But that's been going on for thousands of years already.

Money is worthless. Only a greedy person would care about money.

The extinction event is more worrisome. Some species crucial to human survival may go extinct, and humans may go extinct. But what makes us so special? It seems inevitable that humans should go extinct. I don't really see a problem with humans going extinct. The Earth will live on, and more resilient species will survive. Survival of the fittest after all. And humans just aren't fit.


I destroy your property as a negligent byproduct of following my own interests. Change is inevitable, so clearly you have no complaint against me.
 
You know what's funny? The automatic assumption that everyone I was talking about was a "lefty". If the jury turned in a not guilty declaration he'd announce the sentence anyway and not even blink. The narrative is already constructed.
You know what else is funny? A supposed anarchist thinking "lefty" is an insult.
 
I think what's going to make it difficult for people is all the mistakes made by unsafe fracking that did result in the contamination of ground water. Had they began with making sure every gas well was safe then people wouldn't have such a big problem with it.

Most of the people who want to do Fracking are the same type of people who could care less about the environment. They mainly want to get rich quick. Not exactly the most trustworthy when it comes to making sure it's safe.

I'll keep an open-mind on the subject but at this point I still favor a big effort to build up renewable energy and increase energy efficiency over fracking.

Imagine if we put as much productivity into renewable energy as we do with military weapons and equipment for fighting wars.

Sentiments exactly. Europe has a hard time being convinced about the goods of shale gas despite being bloody rich in it. The government needs to step in and make sure that the regulation of environmental safety must be put in place so that the repeat of 'Gasland' won't happen.

I think the world should push into both shale gas and renewable energy. Simply because, while renewable energy is the goal, it's a hard and lengthy and expensive process to achieve. Shale Gas and fracking can be the transitional energy source as we move from oil/coal to renewables in the next 100 years. Simply because it's a lot cleaner than coal and oil, it can be made cheap and affordable and there are massive quantities of it to spare for a many decades to come.

try showing a photo of the water table used by the farmers which sits above the gas layer.... fracking may be good or bad long term.... its just not taken into account with most environmental studies... especially when your neighbors start fracking with your water table



C'mon, man - this is completely disingenuous! You're trying to equate the surface footprint of a *single well* with the totality of subterranean effects from fracking an entire geological stratum?!

That said, I'm not at all against natural gas as a transitional fuel (as others have pointed out).

But there's no reason at all to rush headlong into full-fledged fracking, which is what the pro-fracking cheerleaders advocate. Why aren't they using the same 'caution' and 'desire for better research and study' that they demand of global warming solutions?

MONEY.

Again.

 

That's not at all the way you presented it. You offered a picture of a single well with the caption "Look at how much physical damage is actually caused by fracking"

That's blatantly false. You should know that, if you've researched fracking at all (which it seems like you have)... Of course we're going to call you out on something that's not representative of the facts - whether or not it's the main point of your argument.

Honestly I tend to agree with you that natural gas will/must be part of the US's energy portfolio for the short and medium term. But don't go and try to paint it as an ecologically neutral source - which is precisely what your choice of image and caption did.

If you don't want us to throw out your entire argument don't give us ammunition ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom