Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Jul 31, 2018 1:20 pm 
Weather related losses are on pace for their lowest year in history Note the lack of significant trend in the yearly data, although the sample size is tiny.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Jul 31, 2018 2:07 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Under the 'duh' category (along with the larger footprint of maintaining *two* power systems, one boutique (green) and the other mandatory (standard plants)), a fundamental economic problem with the storage ideas to make 'green' sources sort of function more like reliable ones...
Quote:
Energy storage (batteries and other ways of storing electricity, like pumped water, compressed air, or molten salt) has generally been hailed as a “green” technology, key to enabling more renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But energy storage has a dirty secret. The way it’s typically used in the US today, it enables more fossil-fueled energy and higher carbon emissions. Emissions are higher today than they would have been if no storage had ever been deployed in the US.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/27/17283830/batteries-energy-storage-carbon-emissions
Reading the article, the conclusion that energy storage will increase carbon dioxide emissions is based on modeling energy usage patterns. I find that hilarious-- given how frequently MtnGoat rejects the use of modeling by climate researchers.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Jul 31, 2018 4:23 pm 
Now that's funny...I included it precisely *because* of the true believers faith in models. tongue.gif The interesting thing is that these models are more constrained and may even actually be testable in theory. Unlike the refusal to accept falsification which has been the hallmark of warmism's response to the plateau/pause, and the utter failure to predict it. The range of arguments goes from it never happened, to the dog ate my homework version (the ocean's ate the heat)....

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Aug 01, 2018 9:22 am 
It's dead, Jim... global warming suit dismissed
Quote:
The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm. As earlier orders have pointed out, plaintiffs’ nuisance claims depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet. Ocean rise, as far as plaintiffs contend, would have occurred even without regard to each defendant’s California contacts. Lacking, however, is a causal chain sufficiently connecting plaintiffs’ harm and defendants’ California activities. Finally, plaintiffs advocate for a less stringent standard of “but for” causation in light of the liability rules underlying public nuisance claims. Such an argument has been rejected by our court of appeals, which has instructed that “liability is not to be conflated with amenability to suit in a particular forum.” For the same reasons discussed above, however, plaintiffs do not satisfy this third requirement. Even taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they have failed to show that BP or Royal Dutch Shell’s national conduct was a “but for” cause of their harm.
PDF It's almost too bad, we didn't get to watch the city attempting to attack Shell in court for certain future harm to the city at the same time they sold bonds for the same future time period ....without warning investors of said certain doom

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostThu Aug 02, 2018 10:13 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Aug 02, 2018 2:58 pm 
Nah,that's not what he said. What he noted is in the link. We all accept the reality of global warming. What's at issue is the flawed assertion of human causation. Apparently, the 80s were a time of recognition of reality.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostThu Aug 02, 2018 4:12 pm 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12797 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 02, 2018 7:42 pm 
Doppelganger wrote:
Help me understand what is gained if the world agrees that human causation is not a factor, it's really not making sense to me.
It would absolve all of those who are involved in the continued promotion of the use of fossil fuels and maintaining the status quo (as opposed to exploring options for alternative sources of energy.) Analogous to proving that smoking cigarettes does not, in fact, cause respiratory problems. So no, it does not make one damn bit of sense. But do keep arguing about it. We're up to 600 pages here now. up.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostThu Aug 02, 2018 9:01 pm 
Just arguing about it is a victory for the polluters, as long as we are arguing it gives a reason to do nothing. That is why I no longer argue. I vote and contribute.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12797 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 02, 2018 9:05 pm 
Malachai Constant wrote:
"...as long as we are arguing it gives a reason to do nothing..."
Correct - the Koch brothers' investment of millions of dollars spent on a misinformation campaign pays off in the end. up.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostFri Aug 03, 2018 6:02 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Aug 03, 2018 7:41 am 
It is called “teach the controversy” long a tactic of the creationists. Trump up a few renegade scientists and say they should be givin equal credence with the consensus. Generate a lot of smoke. It was originated by the same folks who contended tobacco was not harmful.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 03, 2018 6:32 pm 
Doppelganger wrote:
Right, the link to the site run by Watt. Reputable until the bitter, denying end. Human causation was also established, Alsup stated this was clearly a problem that we have created and that we need to solve. But then he said "someone else needs to figure this problem out, see ya! xoxo". What you are referring to is whether the defendants activity alone could have been found to be direct contributors to the process of global warming and damage (past and future, ridiculous) to the coast of California, I agree that this is incredibly complex and impossible to prove - we've spent decades debating the very existence of global warming, and now the court is expected to figure out how an fraction of historical production may have played a part? Ridiculous. But human causation was not ruled out, in fact Alsup emphasized how critical it is that we recognize this. Help me understand what is gained if the world agrees that human causation is not a factor, it's really not making sense to me.
Science is not who, it's what. If you need to argue about who, instead of applying standard method and falsifying their arguments empirically, you're not applying science. Human causation has never been established. There is no empirical evidence of causation of warming by human causes, and the claim of causation is based upon the contentions of some theorists and models. Variations are also consistent with natural variations. It has been hotter before during the current interglacial, for example. If we agreed human causation was not a factor, the reason to limit CO2 emissions goes away.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 03, 2018 6:35 pm 
Ski wrote:
It would absolve all of those who are involved in the continued promotion of the use of fossil fuels and maintaining the status quo (as opposed to exploring options for alternative sources of energy.) Analogous to proving that smoking cigarettes does not, in fact, cause respiratory problems. So no, it does not make one damn bit of sense. But do keep arguing about it. We're up to 600 pages here now. up.gif
Yes, finding no causation would absolve people of responsibility for causing a problem that doesn't actually exist. I don't see how that's a problem. Your argument implies the use of the claims as a tool for leverage to serve other goals. There are lots of people exploring lots of options for alternatives, which is great when done privately.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 03, 2018 6:36 pm 
Ski wrote:
Correct - the Koch brothers' investment of millions of dollars spent on a misinformation campaign pays off in the end. up.gif
If money is the determinant, I'd say that poisons the warming enthusiasts case far more. After all, the amount spent in support of this by govts dwarfs that spent by any skeptics.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum