[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by lpkruege1

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

Chicxulub meteor killed the dinosaurs, not "the" ice age , of which there have been several.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by srswans

Nuclear power is the best way to replace fossil fuel usage (see IPCC, Apocalypse Never by Shellenberger, etc.).

We can argue about how much humans are affecting the climate or we can just go nuclear and have cheaper and cleaner energy. Gen IV reactors are the future.

I am personally anti-nukes.

I worked at the Palo-Verde power plant as a project manager for a few years and learned a lot about them. Palo-Verde has the safest history/track record of any major power plant in the country. It has been online since 1988, and it tool 12 years to build.

Generally, you are correct; the power plants are safe. They have a far safer track record than coal-fired plants.

But that is not the end of the story.

You have to consider the risk-reward. A Nuke plant failure can have catastrophic consequences. A coal-fired plant failure is almost guaranteed to be localized.

There are other concerns, such as waste removal and storage. Bad with coal (coal ash is very hazardous), but it is VERY bad with spent nuclear fuels.

Another consideration of nukes is the cost and danger of decommissioning them. It is NOT a simple thing to do and can take decades. No matter how well we build them, eventually, they do get too old to maintain. So, they are just another form of "kicking the can down the road."

Also, while working there, I learned a lot about distributed vs centralized generation - the pros and cons. The decentralized is to create small power sources locally (neighborhood or even per point of consumption) vs. a big power plant and the massive distribution grid to get the power to the endpoint. Distribution grids have losses that average 22.5%. That means 1/5 of ALL the power generated at a power plant is lost as heat by the time it gets to the end user. That is a LOT of electricity going to waste., But, you and I pay for it anyway. Centralized power generation favors big company profits but is vulnerable to massive power outages. Decentralized is harder for big companies to compete with but almost impervious to outages.

There is serious work being done on what is called micro-nukes. That is an interesting idea that combines the best of centralized and decentralized. But it is a LONG way off.

And, finally, for this post, the time to build and get a nuke plant online can be decades. While the time to bring online a wind farm or solar farm, or hydro plant can be a couple of years - including planning, impact studies, etc.,

I read somewhere that "green" energy can be brought online faster than nukes when you compare kilowatt output because of the long timeline to do the nukes.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Wonder if we go all green what the unintended consequences would be? We think we know so much more than we do.

Mostly good stuff, like the intended consequences, I'm guessing.

[George Page]

The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old.
Those who started the 12 year countdown clock for climate disaster a few years ago will be proven wrong.

If man never inhabited the earth there would be climate change. Man’s contribution cannot be accurately quantified, but we all know the 12 year timetable for irreversible disastrous climate change is a joke.

NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up perfectly: “Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down.” There is plenty of time for sensible technologies to be developed and implemented. Those who call for immediate drastic action clearly have ulterior motives. Follow the money!

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Wonder if we go all green what the unintended consequences would be? We think we know so much more than we do.

I am a skeptic.

Not that climate change does/did not occur. It has been much colder and much hotter in the past for extended periods. Waters have covered Florida in hot periods and have exposed the peninsula in cold periods. This has happened without people and without technology causing the change.

But weather also occurs separate from climate change. A storm is not climate change and any claims that a single storm is evidence of climate change are unrealistic.

More dramatic changes such as diminishing icecaps or glaciers might be more realistic to consider. However, political claims of human cause and remedies are suspect for several reasons. First, is that climate change has heated the earth and cooled the earth for billions of years without human help. Second, is that proposed causes and remedies are not proven. While burning of fossil fuels may have an impact, the severity is not proven, and the proposed remedies are not certain.

The skepticism comes from politicians claiming that they know the causes and the cures for the phenomena. But even worse, trying to force their cures onto everyone. Some say too much methane from cows, hair spray destroying the Ozone layer, too much use of carbon fuels. Each of these may have some impact. However, "Climate" changes have happened in the past, before hairspray, carbon fuel use, and even when there were fewer cows.
One storm is not proof of anything regarding climate change but may be an indicator of change in the long run. But, certainly not proof of political claims of cures that aim to divide for political gain.

Yes, less use of fossil fuels may be goal for improvement when technology is ready. But let's not jump on that spaceship until we know it works and is supportable.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I think the climate change deniers are terrified. They're afraid of so many things.

#1 - they're afraid that they're wrong. That's the big one.
#2 - they're afraid that they might have to make changes to the way they live. Even small changes fly in the face of the "my freedoms" mentality.
#3 - they're afraid to accept that the human species is destructive to the planet, because it means they have to accept that they are, deep in the core of their very existence, innately flawed. Not just "incorrect about this topic" or "wrong about a calculation or a left turn." But flawed, from within their DNA. The entire species - including their spouses and children, parents and best friends. All flawed, incapable of evolving if they continue to insist on denying it.
#4 - they're afraid of progress. The unknown. That which is not fully in their control. They're not control freaks, but they fear "other." Anything that doesn't jibe with their vision of existence - is dangerous or scary.

In order to combat all these things they go on the defensive. But it's a lazy defense. It's a cop-out. They mock, they poke fun, they deny. "I saw on the internet that climate change is a hoax, so I can relax now and not worry about it." "I saw this guy who says he's a scientist insist that humans have nothing to do with climate change, so I'll just point at him whenever it comes up in conversation." "I saw this elected official make fun of scientists who show the data, and I like this elected official, so I will choose to blindly agree with whatever he says because the truth requires more effort on my part."

When someone pushes back and says "no seriously - there's a problem, and it can't be "solved" but it CAN be addressed and you can help" - well they've already denied there's a problem. So they double down and get angry.

So where are we with climate change?

We're with a planet that is dying - which is what planets do. It's dying at a rate faster than it would die, had the human species not evolved to the Age of Agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, or the Age of Technology. If humans had not meddled with nature and instead, lived WITH it - the planet would not be at the stage of decay it is currently.

It will absolutely become a dead planet. All planets eventually die. But the more we meddle with it, the quicker that death comes. No amount of denying that will negate the fact. We can accept it and NOT do anything about it. We can accept it and DO something about it. We can accept it and try to destroy it even faster than we already are.

But it's happening, and we are absolutely contributing to it.

As for point #1, Do you think the same of Santa Claus "deniers" or Tooth Fairy "deniers"? After all, 1 fantasy is pretty much like all the others.

As for the last 4 paragraphs, where was that nonsense dug up from?
Yes, the planet will die. We have about 1.8 billion years until the early stages of the sun's death throes envelop us in its photosphere--I suppose the believers would term that "global warming". That is unless a large asteroid wipes us out first.

Will simply putting more CO2 into the air "kill" the planet??? Doubtful, there are much more powerful forces at work on our climate. 65 million years ago the planet was much warmer with more CO2 and methane than even the climate change advocates predict, but the planet is still here. Of course, Dino isn't----oh, wait, that was because the climate got COLDER.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by rogerrice60

Best reply yet!
Don't forget, in the 1960's people were claiming GLOBAL COOLING was going to tip the earth over due to the enlarging ice cap!
God's the only one who will destroy His earth.. Thank Him for His many blessings!

God gave us free will. We use it to terra form and trash the garden of Eden we were given. God said , "go forth and multiply", but forgot to tell us to be responsible in our growth. God will destroy the planet, but he gave us the free will and the population to make the planet less habitable. So, if you believe in God, we are just doing his will.?.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by PersonOfInterest

Not to worry. God has the situation well in hand and will have a solution within the next thousand years or so.

I was so scared, but I feel much better, now.
😏

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by George Page

The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old.
Those who started the 12 year countdown clock for climate disaster a few years ago will be proven wrong.

If man never inhabited the earth there would be climate change. Man’s contribution cannot be accurately quantified, but we all know the 12 year timetable for irreversible disastrous climate change is a joke.

NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up perfectly: “Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down.” There is plenty of time for sensible technologies to be developed and implemented. Those who call for immediate drastic action clearly have ulterior motives. Follow the money!

I am so impressed that you know the planet came about 4.5 billion years ago, I assume you are accepting the science because a significant percentage of the country's population believes it started about 5000 years ago; why is it you are right, and they are wrong? Were you there? Did you keep a diary?

I apologize if you find that insulting, that is how people who believe science feel when they are called stupid.

Second, MAN has not been around to change things for 4.5 billion years. We have only been around for about 100,000 years - depending on your definitions. And in that 100,000 years, we did nothing that would change the basic ecological balance of the planet until about 100 or 200 years ago - depending on where you start counting. Then in the last 100 years, we went from basically agricultural culture for most of the world to industrial culture for most of the world, and a population of around 1 billion people to a population of around 8 billion people. All consuming and adding to industrial demand for everything from food to transportation to housing and on and on.

Have you ever maintained a balanced aquarium? Probably not, based on your comment. Take a 100-gallon tank and keep 2 fish in it and it is easy to maintain and keep them both alive; add 200 more fish, and it gets much hard, Things go bad, and fish die.

The earth is a closed ecosystem with the exception of the sun adding energy in and heat radiating energy out. For 99.999975% of the earth's life, man did not even exist. In just the last 0.0000025% of the earth's life, we have been polluting.

I wonder what effect all that pollution might have? I am not a climatologist, so I can't say. Are you a climatologist? Because your post is simply a collection of common sense statements with nothing more to .support them, I assume you are also not a climatologist. So, I have to wonder why you have come to this conclusion.

You seem to accept science when you want to - the earth is 4.5 bill years old - but not when it doesn't feel right to you.

[Pachine58]

It’s 100% political.

First the earth needs carbon dioxide to function.
Second Mother Nature has cycles it goes thru.
Its about the science of the planet not some made made political science to scam the weak minded.

[Stu from NYC]

Wonder how many people changed their opinion of climate change since this debate first started.? Guessing none

Would be more interesting without the name calling though

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

I am a skeptic.

However, political claims of human cause and remedies are suspect for several reasons.

Would you please provide a reference to anyone on any of the discussions here using political claims as proof of anthropogenic climate change?

I know I personally would never base ANYTHING on ANY claim by ANY politician. I can't say the say is true of others posting here.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I think the climate change deniers are terrified. They're afraid of so many things.

#1 - they're afraid that they're wrong. That's the big one.
#2 - they're afraid that they might have to make changes to the way they live. Even small changes fly in the face of the "my freedoms" mentality.
#3 - they're afraid to accept that the human species is destructive to the planet, because it means they have to accept that they are, deep in the core of their very existence, innately flawed. Not just "incorrect about this topic" or "wrong about a calculation or a left turn." But flawed, from within their DNA. The entire species - including their spouses and children, parents and best friends. All flawed, incapable of evolving if they continue to insist on denying it.
#4 - they're afraid of progress. The unknown. That which is not fully in their control. They're not control freaks, but they fear "other." Anything that doesn't jibe with their vision of existence - is dangerous or scary.

In order to combat all these things they go on the defensive. But it's a lazy defense. It's a cop-out. They mock, they poke fun, they deny. "I saw on the internet that climate change is a hoax, so I can relax now and not worry about it." "I saw this guy who says he's a scientist insist that humans have nothing to do with climate change, so I'll just point at him whenever it comes up in conversation." "I saw this elected official make fun of scientists who show the data, and I like this elected official, so I will choose to blindly agree with whatever he says because the truth requires more effort on my part."

When someone pushes back and says "no seriously - there's a problem, and it can't be "solved" but it CAN be addressed and you can help" - well they've already denied there's a problem. So they double down and get angry.

So where are we with climate change?

We're with a planet that is dying - which is what planets do. It's dying at a rate faster than it would die, had the human species not evolved to the Age of Agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, or the Age of Technology. If humans had not meddled with nature and instead, lived WITH it - the planet would not be at the stage of decay it is currently.

It will absolutely become a dead planet. All planets eventually die. But the more we meddle with it, the quicker that death comes. No amount of denying that will negate the fact. We can accept it and NOT do anything about it. We can accept it and DO something about it. We can accept it and try to destroy it even faster than we already are.

But it's happening, and we are absolutely contributing to it.

Well said 👍👍

[Daddymac]

Global warming has started long ago. The earth has been warming up since the end of the ice age !! And that is a true fact..

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

First, I certainly will gladly accept the term WEIRDO if that means I accept science as the better explanation for things I don't have the knowledge to explain.

Second, Yes, the climate has been and always will change. DUH. Nice way to divert the actual discussion. As with so many things, people tend to use common usage terms when discussing topics instead of scientifically accurate terms. For example, I am a HACKER. I have been a HACKER since around 1978. However, at some point, the term HACKER came to mean something bad. If I were to use today's "common tongue," I would be called a white hat hacker vs. a black hat hacker. But seriously, why?

Same with climate change, most of your post boils down to duh

The debate is and has ALWAYS been is the result of human activity resulting in the climate changing in ways different from what it would be doing IF man were not here doing the things we are doing. Rather than typing that entire definition every time when one discusses climate change, it is common just to say climate change. Anyone interested in discussing it and not just blowing dog whistles understands. Starting a post with "the climate is and always has been changing" brings nothing to the party expect possibly pointing out you are making a political statement instead of a science-based statement.

We could also make it a rule always to say anthropogenic climate change - but even the scientist I know don't say that when talking about it. It is UNDERSTOOD. And, in a non-scientific forum such as this, it would be taken by many (most?) and being arrogant or elitist to use accurate scientific terms when discussing science.

So we/most just say Climate Change.

And finally, your insulting post, using terms like "left", weirdos, "those that can't think", etc. Shows you are not interested in discussing anything but instead are just interested in getting brownie points with your political buddies by getting in the "best burns: If you would have posted even a single sentence you didn't read, hear of, watch but instead showed you had actually THOUGHT about it, there may have been room for discussion. So much for complaining about others not being able to think for themselves. A wise man once said when you point at someone; the other 4 fingers point back at yourself - truer in your case than most.

Sigh. I am certain it is a waste of perfectly good pixels to even bother to reply to you, but it seems I can't help myself.

Not a waste of pixels. I thought your reply was great. I enjoyed it. Well done. 👍👍