Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 10:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
Parked Out wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/09/democratic-candidates-climate-policy-commitments-are-incredibly-ambitious-but-fail-a-reality-test/

Same tired sources. Pielke is a tool lacking credibility who has been discussed here before, used to present information exactly as you have regurgitated it, with the sole purpose of achieving political and economic goals. He's happy to do it, and may even be compensated for it... Your statement does not address the questions of Pielke's credibility or motives. Furthermore, these questions have been explored in previous comments in this thread (as I already stated in my prior post)

Even your ad hominem attacks don't make any sense.  Pielke's been banging the drum on this issue for awhile now - that neither the US nor the world are decarbonizing at anywhere near the rate needed to met our ostensible climate goals.  Apparently you disagree?  And please tell us what you imagine these nefarious political and economic goals are that he's allegedly in service of with this Forbes piece.  Maybe he'd like to see someone put forth a plan that's halfway plausible?  Wow, so evil...

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1301 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 10:54 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The nuclear issue is a good example of my call for flexibility. I would claim that arguments against nuclear have some strong points. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this time the promise of a cheap and safe new reactor design that doesn't create vast quantities of toxic waste that must be transported somewhere on our nation's highways, etc etc, will actually come to fruition. Then I will need to adjust my opinion, and if a plan adopted already did not include that, it would need to be adjusted too.

Many have their opinions on the best way to get started. But everybody also needs to keep an open mind as we see what works best. Plenty of countries around the world are aggressively pursuing nuclear energy, so we will see.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 11:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
new reactor design that doesn't create vast quantities of toxic waste that must be transported somewhere on our nation's highways, etc etc,

Maybe if you Green Party types and Big Enviro would stop the misinformation campaign... ^^^

Carbon intensity of electricity-2
Carbon intensity of electricity-2

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1565 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 12:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
Even your ad hominem attacks don't make any sense.  Pielke's been banging the drum on this issue for awhile now - that neither the US nor the world are decarbonizing at anywhere near the rate needed to met our ostensible climate goals.  Apparently you disagree?  And please tell us what you imagine these nefarious political and economic goals are that he's allegedly in service of with this Forbes piece.  Maybe he'd like to see someone put forth a plan that's halfway plausible?  Wow, so evil...

lol.gif  lol.gif Fine, I went ahead and did the work, reviewing the previous occasions Pielke has been a topic of conversation here. Guess what, some of the same questions were directed to you  then regarding Pielke's credibility and credentials, and you ignored them with the same "doesn't make sense" dismissal (and ignored the invitation for clarification, as you will again I am sure). I guess confusion is something you feel when challenged by facts? I won't link the posts, the same questions you asked before and are asking again today were answered then. You've read each of the posts, responded to them and are welcome to put in what little effort you see fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 1:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
Parked Out wrote:
Even your ad hominem attacks don't make any sense.  Pielke's been banging the drum on this issue for awhile now - that neither the US nor the world are decarbonizing at anywhere near the rate needed to met our ostensible climate goals.  Apparently you disagree?  And please tell us what you imagine these nefarious political and economic goals are that he's allegedly in service of with this Forbes piece.  Maybe he'd like to see someone put forth a plan that's halfway plausible?  Wow, so evil...

lol.gif  lol.gif Fine, I went ahead and did the work, reviewing the previous occasions Pielke has been a topic of conversation here. Guess what, some of the same questions were directed to you  then regarding Pielke's credibility and credentials, and you ignored them with the same "doesn't make sense" dismissal (and ignored the invitation for clarification, as you will again I am sure). I guess confusion is something you feel when challenged by facts? I won't link the posts, the same questions you asked before and are asking again today were answered then. You've read each of the posts, responded to them and are welcome to put in what little effort you see fit.

Pielke's credibility & credentials aren't an issue (no matter how much you want them to be), in this particular case because all he does is present the candidates' own proposals and then put them in the context of what those proposals would take to achieve vs. what has actually been achieved to date, and asks 'how in real life do you intend to achieve that?'  Anyone could do the same and it would be a legitimate question.  Since you have nothing to offer but don't like the question, you go all ad hominem but I guess that's what you do.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 859 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 1:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
France pursued aggressively nuclear power decades ago, and they did it well.

Their results are impressive: cheaper electricity than their european neighbors AND significantly less CO2 production per capita.  They reprocess their fuel enough such that its mass is small enough to be less annoying.

Their "green" neighbors, struggling to force less reliable renewables into poor locations, are finding their costs increasing while their CO2 emissions remain significantly higher.

If we want cheap reliable carbonless in large quantity soon, fission is the only tech that is ready.

And cheap=realistic.

Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
coldrain108
Thundering Herd



Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1445 | TRs
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
coldrain108
  Top

Thundering Herd
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 2:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release.

Do they choose the design and build of the facility by the highest quality of work or do they do as the USA does and choose the lowest bidder?

--------------
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing"  - Albert Einstein
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release.

The US has about 100 nuclear plants vs 58 in France and the only significant US release was at Three Mile Island in 1979.  The release was inconsequential for worker/public health but highly consequential for future plant safety.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6489 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 4:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
coldrain108 wrote:
thunderhead wrote:
Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release.

Do they choose the design and build of the facility by the highest quality of work or do they do as the USA does and choose the lowest bidder?

I don't think contracting out work on nuclear programs in France is something that is even considered.   The nuclear generation program is run by EDF a firm essentially owned by the French government.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 859 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 4:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Three Mile Island in 1979


Lol couldn't resist.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 7:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
Three Mile Island in 1979


Lol couldn't resist.

Lol!  I enjoyed that show, even if it wasn't very accurate.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1565 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 7:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
Pielke's credibility & credentials aren't an issue

OK then biggrin.gif  You are certainly allowed to hold your own standards...

Parked Out wrote:
in this particular case

lol.gif ...And adhere to them, or not, as you see fit!

I'm not sure much else needs to be said here. Pick and choose your way to the conclusion you've already arrived at  lol.gif  lol.gif  There's absolutely nothing wrong with the question "'how in real life do you intend to achieve that?", and there's absolutely nothing wrong with not having an answer. Nobody had any answers for Kennedy when he asked how we would get to the moon, but they didn't just shrug their shoulders and give up, instead they got to work and ^%#$ing figured it out.

Why doesn't Pielke mention his official position at the University of Colorado in his article bio description or Forbes bio? Is he ashamed that he has been relegated to director of the Sports Governance Center (whatever that is, they didn't even bother to capitalize director for him on the CSTPR site :/), or does he fear that he offers the impression of no credibility since he no longer holds (ask yourself why) any position related to the study of economy or climate?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 7:24 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the question "'how in real life do you intend to achieve that?"

But of course that's not going to stop you from going off on a pointless ad hominem tirade.

Some of us think it's valuable to call bs on the absurd claims made by politicians.  Others are happy to just lap it up and be content in their ignorance.

Doppelganger, sometimes you're worth engaging with but apparently this wasn't one of those times.  Glad you got to practice with your emoticons though, those are cute.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1301 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 8:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
drm wrote:
new reactor design that doesn't create vast quantities of toxic waste that must be transported somewhere on our nation's highways, etc etc,

Maybe if you Green Party types and Big Enviro would stop the misinformation campaign... ^^^

Carbon intensity of electricity-2
Carbon intensity of electricity-2

I'm not sure what you're on about. Are you saying that nuclear waste wouldn't have to be transported somewhere if we were to have a major growth in that form of energy production? And what does carbon intensity have to do with what I said?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 8:43 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're on about. Are you saying that nuclear waste wouldn't have to be transported somewhere if we were to have a major growth in that form of energy production? And what does carbon intensity have to do with what I said?

For starters: 

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Matt!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy