Some Advice For Congress
Senate to vote on existence of manmade global warming. Maybe they should vote on whether Kepler planets are real. http://t.co/xVmV61F9F7
— Natalie Batalha (@nbatalha) January 14, 2015
Senate to vote on existence of manmade global warming. Maybe they should vote on whether Kepler planets are real. http://t.co/xVmV61F9F7
— Natalie Batalha (@nbatalha) January 14, 2015
Just to depress myself this morning, I did some Greenhouse Gas Equivalents. If, by superhuman stupendous effort, the US replaced every single US coal burning plant with a zero-emission alternative, it would lessen the global burden by… 3%!
This would cost somewhere north of $2-3 trillion, with the CO2 savings disappearing in the annual statistical noise. Now, it is a good idea from ocean acidification, air pollution, strip-mining, etc, but it ain’t gonna save us from climate change.
It will be hard to get China and India on board if we can’t even get ourselves on board. That said, the $2-$3 trillion you mention will be a cost to utilities, taxpayers and electric consumers, but it will also be an income to the new energy industry, solar/wind/nuclear/etc and its employees, who are also taxpayers. It could be an extraordinary economic stimulus. I’m looking out the window at two electric cars recharging in the parking lot. That’s an industry that did not exist.
I do understand. We can’t preach what we don’t practice.
But I despair of anything happening. Even redoing the power sector globally is just a minority of the problem. 2/3rd to 3/4 of the GHG equivalent is outside the global electrical sector. Land use, transportation, etc. are the biggest block and globally we are going the wrong way.
Altho, whenever I get too depressed I watch this from one of my longtime (mid 1970s) ultra-extreme-super-mega-heroes, and get a trifle sunnier:
http://www.ted.com/talks/am…
Why would you think China would get on board? They’re happy to let the US bankrupt itself and take it out of being a global power.
And we run the risk of bankrupting the US economy and by not spending that money on coping with any temperature rise, be unprepared for it.
This reminds me of the Indiana Pi bill of 1897. The state legislature almost passed a bill making Pi equal to 3.
Also note that there are a number of web sites which claim to use Bible texts to show that Pi is an even number.
But hey, all this science stuff is “straight from the pit of hell,” according to former Rep. Paul Braun (ex-member, House Science and Space Committee).
I’m now waiting for some crackpot to propose a bill repealing Newton’s laws so that we won’t need to spend all that money on big rockets.
Darn, you beat me to the “legislate pi” comment! Bravo.
Reality is optional.
The scientific consensus is that anthropomorphic global climate change is occurring. Those who want to preserve the status quo that favors huge, multinational, petroleum and energy corporations, are using the same playbook that was used by the tobacco industry to muddy the waters during the government debate on their responsibility for causing cancer. I remember how tobacco lobbyists and lawyers got to our representatives in Congress to block action against tobacco companies despite the clear scientific evidence that smoking was a major cause of cancer. In 20-30 years, we will finally overcome the partisan defense of fossil fuels but at what cost? I’m nearly 50 and won’t live to pay for the consequences of our inaction and I feel sorry for the children today who will suffer for our moral cowardice. Necessity is the mother of invention so I can only hope that our science & engineering prowess will help them survive.
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. The scientific method doesn’t care about consensus, only objective facts which are challenged and defended. I haven’t yet heard of skeptical scientists challenging ANY claims for the cause of global warming, or any of the data. How can it be defended if it is not challenged? Wake up scientists. Wake up Keith C, you’re normally a big skeptic. You’re disappointing us skeptics. Where are the debates? Where is the defense? On what grounds did they choose human-kind as the culprit? What are the UNCERTAINTIES in the climate models? How many other avenues of climate change (natural or human caused) did they investigate and eliminate? Why did they eliminate them? I have NEVER heard or read anything like this. Nothing is science if it is not challenged and defended!
Oh and nature contributes the VAST proportion of greenhouse gases that get emitted into the atmosphere. Humanity contributes but a few percent. If we cut back by 10% or 20% on humans greenhouse gas emissions, we’ll change the total greenhouse gas increase by 1% or less. Doesn’t make a compelling argument for the trillions in economic cost.
“Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.” Not really. In the non-scientist arena lay people and politicians need to make policy choices. Since they are not in a position to directly evaluate the data they need a surrogate. 97% of scientists with backgrounds directly in relevant fields (for example, not weathermen) agree that anthrogenic climate change is occurring. That should carry some weight. Alternative views of course must be entertained.
“Oh and nature contributes the VAST proportion of greenhouse gases that get emitted into the atmosphere”
The fallacy of your point was discussed here:
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
I found no factual support of your claim. From what I’ve read, it appears that the OCO-2 spacecraft found that a majority of CO2 emissions are coming from the ocean and south hemisphere land masses, probably from underwater volcanoes and rotting vegetation.
There are scientists that have challenged assumptions of global warming, but they usually get ridiculed and papers rejected. There is no true scientific study of it. It seems any analysis is controlled by those that support global warming and any dissent is stifled.