Why can't we admit..

[absolom7691]

Stimulating conversation, gentlemen . And now let us pause for a quick laugh.....

[planters]

absolom,

Good points. One area I would like to examine is literally in your backyard. Water shortages are not necessarily a result of climate change. As temperatures rise and fall, irrespective of the cause, global rainfall/snowfall will likely rise and fall and almost certainly redistribute in new patterns. This only manifests as a "shortage" if there is population pressure that requires it. Under some models while areas like California become more arid, areas in Siberia become wetter and arable land shifts from California to these other areas. One way to cope with these shifts is to develop desalinization plants near the coast in California. This is something like your suggestion to locate thermal-solar in that location. However, desalinization is extremely energy demanding and even with abundant sunlight will require lots of costly infrastructure. Meanwhile, living conditions in many northern latitudes which are sparsely populated now may have improved substantially with longer growing periods, warmer temperatures and more plentiful rainfall.

The point I am making is that whatever contribution human activity has on the eons long process of climate change there are vulnerabilities that are the result of how we choose to live. There is a solid argument that California is overpopulated. The water requirements of even the last decade or two are only sustainable by transporting in water that is paid for with dollars you don't have; huge debt, massive development in a water limited delicate environment. Even if the climate was rock solid forever there are more pressing forces that make the present course suicidal. There is a reason that nomadic societies developed in areas with limited resources, but with huge populations (now increasingly in cities) there is a much lower ratio of land to share in a low impact approach. With large populations in rural China and elsewhere using fossil fuels like coal, just to heat their homes (not enough global warming yet,) and cook their food, driving a Prius is just not going to make any significant difference.

So, what do we do? We may not have much ability to change the course of events. If populations continue to grow they will eventually be checked. If not voluntarily then through famine, disease and war. Individuals, communities and countries can determine to some extent their role. You can move or guard your home and your borders. You can invest in technology and/or kill your competitors. The third world may in fact forever remain the third world, but the question may be whether the first world and the second world will be compelled to join them.

For news, I agree that the TV is almost pointless. I call it cartoons for adults. However, the best mix I feel is the BBC, Al-Jazeera and RT, but keep in mind the opposing points of view. I like Drudge, but only as a launching point to linked articles. The first page is clearly addenda driven. I like the Economist and the Globalist and I also subscribe to a few investment newsletters and of course...The Lounge.

[absolom7691]

Good points. One area I would like to examine is literally in your backyard. Water shortages are not necessarily a result of climate change. As temperatures rise and fall, irrespective of the cause, global rainfall/snowfall will likely rise and fall and almost certainly redistribute in new patterns. This only manifests as a "shortage" if there is population pressure that requires it. Under some models while areas like California become more arid, areas in Siberia become wetter and arable land shifts from California to these other areas. One way to cope with these shifts is to develop desalinization plants near the coast in California. This is something like your suggestion to locate thermal-solar in that location. However, desalinization is extremely energy demanding and even with abundant sunlight will require lots of costly infrastructure. Meanwhile, living conditions in many northern latitudes which are sparsely populated now may have improved substantially with longer growing periods, warmer temperatures and more plentiful rainfall.

There's quite a bit here going on about the water shortage in California. Most of it is not due to climate change. We've had our wet decades and our dry. TV media loves to spout off that California is experiencing its worst drought since 1895. Well, that is due to many reasons and a good portion of it is political as well as population. A lot has changed since 1895. The population boom of California is the first and most obvious change. The move of a good portion of the nation's agriculture to California has put the most strain on our water supply. Lastly, the wine industry growth in California has also tapped water supplies. For a semi-arid region to begin with, this state is overpopulated. The political aspect is in our portion of water that Southern California is alloted from the Colorado River. In the past, Califonia has taken its share and also taken good portion of water that was alloted to the other southwestern states. Utah, Arizona and Nevada had populations that were much smaller than the amount of water they were allocated. California helped themselves to a good portion of that "extra" water. We let our water infrastructure and agriculture build a lot around that and even the population got used to all of the water pouring in. In fact, Arizona has taken California to court nine times since 1934 in regards to water allotment. The southwestern states are now taking their share due to the population growth. California is left thirsty because of a drier decade and the glut of water we were used to having is gone.

Desalination is very expensive. I understand that billions of dollars could be invested into a system that would be turned into a boondoggle at the first sign of a wet winter. We have to start looking into other ways to secure clean water though. Conservation is not going to be enough. Nowhere near enough to alleviate our reliance on a system that is, to a degree, unreliable for this size population. Agriculture alone uses over 77% of California's water. Like with all things, the more we start developing and implementing it, the cheaper it becomes. I echo what you said, the course we're on right now is suicidal. Unless a source of clean water is found or produced, we're going to be screwed before climate change really affects us.

So, what do we do? We may not have much ability to change the course of events. If populations continue to grow they will eventually be checked. If not voluntarily then through famine, disease and war. Individuals, communities and countries can determine to some extent their role. You can move or guard your home and your borders. You can invest in technology and/or kill your competitors. The third world may in fact forever remain the third world, but the question may be whether the first world and the second world will be compelled to join them.

Very good point. I see what you're getting at. I think this is all the more reason why it would be better for us to put our money into an adaptive model. If we don't, we may end up "thrid world" because we weren't prepared.

For news, I agree that the TV is almost pointless. I call it cartoons for adults. However, the best mix I feel is the BBC, Al-Jazeera and RT, but keep in mind the opposing points of view. I like Drudge, but only as a launching point to linked articles. The first page is clearly addenda driven. I like the Economist and the Globalist and I also subscribe to a few investment newsletters and of course...The Lounge.

In my home, my TV is more or less a monitor now. I don't even have an antenna hooked to it. The news, "reality" TV and tired sitcoms have me seeking other entertainment. I'll check these out these news outlets. I definitely need to take in more news. I don't do enough reading as it is and am largely left hearing about events from others and am constantly playing catch-up.

[Pangolin]

I'd feel a lot better about the realism of global warming if people weren't getting massively rich off of it! This is a topic that has gone from a number of concerned activist citizens to "you've got to stop what you are doing and pay me".

Also, whenever I hear things like "the debate is over", it makes me think of the Flat Earth days. Really guys, just substitute "global warming" (climate change or whatever your term du jour is) for "flat earth" and you'll see what I mean. Just because people are arguing passionately, and just because there are supposedly more and more and more people saying that the earth is flat doesn't mean it actually is flat! (Especially when there is a tax collector prepared to charge you money every time you get close to the edge of the earth...)

I actually used to believe in global warming, before I started looking into it myself (and before I noticed the riches involved in this). There are plenty of skeptics on this topic, and just just whack jobs as some people want you to believe. Take top MIT scientist Richard Lindzen for example.

I think the most level-headed person on the topic of climate change is Bjorn Lomborg, who has written a book on the subject and made a movie (hehe, like Al Gore). You can see his movie trailer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZR3gsY98VU

And if you're interested in a level-headed approach, you can see his TED talk here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lombo...es?language=en


Bill

[swamidog]

what's wrong with getting rich of off advocacy and finding solutions to problems?

changing the world (presumably for the better) and making money is not necessarily mutually exclusive. yes, it's wrong to make money off of deceptive scare tactics (see politics and fox news), but if the science and empirical evidence is on your side, there is no conflict of morals.

I'd feel a lot better about the realism of global warming if people weren't getting massively rich off of it! This is a topic that has gone from a number of concerned activist citizens to "you've got to stop what you are doing and pay me".

[planters]

what's wrong with getting rich of off advocacy and finding solutions to problems?

There is nothing wrong with this. But, obviously if the problem is manufactured to generate the need as in malware this is evil. If the problem exists, but an ineffective solution is sold under false claims then this is fraud. If the problem may be poorly understood or the cause is complex then advocating a particular solution may be naive and also a bit arrogant.

I've looked at this issue in a moderate amount of detail and the issue I bring up about the near universal conclusion that climate change is BAD BAD BAD, always bad is a huge red flag. Even if I stipulate that it is occurring and humans are causing it (I don't really), but even if I did this seems a lot like a mob like aproch or a religious tenet. Maybe it really is bad, but this does not SEEM objective. Then look at who gets rich from imposing these rules and the whole industry becomes suspect.

The costs are huge and are born by western society and frankly I am fed up with carrying the burden for everyone else. So, I want the evidence to be a lot more plausible that the solution is needed or at the very least appropriate before I'm going to bend over again.

yes, it's wrong to make money off of deceptive scare tactics (see politics and fox news), but if the science and empirical evidence is on your side, there is no conflict of morals.

I assume you don't mean that the ends justify the means, but this does sound like what you are saying.

[absolom7691]

(see politics and fox news)....

The damnable thing about Fox news is, I like some of the things they have to say. For me, they are a bit like Jesse Ventura: Hmmm, that sounds right. I agree with that. That is plausable. That... wait, WTH did you just say? Wow, we are dealing with a bowl of Froot Loops, right here. That is Jesse Ventura for me. Fox news is a bit the same. I don't buy into the evil news corp bit but I also don't drink the Kool-Aid eaither.

[swamidog]

I assume you don't mean that the ends justify the means, but this does sound like what you are saying.

oh no... that school of thought is always such a damn slippery slope. i try to never go there.

[Pangolin]

what's wrong with getting rich of off advocacy and finding solutions to problems?

Keep that in mind, the next time Edison posts something about Pangolin

but if the science and empirical evidence is on your side

...but what if you can, effectively, manufacture "empirical evidence"? After all, if I'm a God Damned scientist and you're a mere mortal (or worst, an unmarried computer programmer), you better listen to me, otherwise you're an idiot denier. (Or at least, that's what the UN would like you to believe...)

By the way, do you know how many scientists have asked to have their names removed from the list of consenters to IPCC? UN added a bunch of scientists names of people who supposedly agree with the whole "global warming" thing.

There really is a lot of debate here. I think the debate is worthwhile. I also think, like Bjorn Lomborg says, there's a lot more effective ways of spending the money rather than "you have to stop what you are doing and pay me" approach.

Bill

[dzodzo]

what's wrong with getting rich of off advocacy and finding solutions to problems?

you can buy carbon permits that are supposed to be solution to CO2 levels problem but in my eyes it's just a money speculation of literally "buying hot air" especially when there are countries who don't pledge to this charade