[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

And they're full of shit on CO2 as well in Europe because coal-fired power-plants are replacing the nuclear plants that are being shut down thanks to decades worth of hardcore anti-nuclear paranoia.

James Hansen once gave everyone a glimpse of his true agenda when he said that the worst thing in the world was 'cheap energy'.

The translation to his comment is that if some sort of energy was discovered that caused dolphins to sing and made butterflies fart rose petals then the so-called environmentalists would be opposed to it.

Because when you get to their core they've got themselves an anti-industrial, anti-civilization, and anti-human agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary ... n_Movement

[Thanos]

Environmentalists are just as good an example of what's wrong with fundamentalism and puritanism as any group of religious cranks are. I'd find it infinitely funny if some day all the goody-goods that unquestioningly support environmental causes were to find out that the environmentalist leaders and hardcores regard practically ALL humans (not just the evil-doers in industry and the rest of us "sheeple" ) to be the enemies of the earth. Kind of like how a lot of the supporters of Communism thought that they had an exemption from being purged until, whoops, Stalin and Mao and Pol Pol taught them otherwise.

[FieryVulpine]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Because when you get to their core they've got themselves an anti-industrial, anti-civilization, and anti-human agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary ... n_Movement

I usually have one thing to say to those kind of people: lead by example. If you get my drift.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Kind of like how a lot of the supporters of Communism thought that they had an exemption from being purged until, whoops, Stalin and Mao and Pol Pol taught them otherwise.

Lenin and Hitler also realized that the most dangerous people to have around after a revolution was anyone who knew how to wage a successful revolution. Meaning that they both sooner or later got around to killing their most ardent supporters.

[BartSimpson]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Because when you get to their core they've got themselves an anti-industrial, anti-civilization, and anti-human agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary ... n_Movement

I usually have one thing to say to those kind of people: lead by example. If you get my drift.

Totally. And I wholeheartedly agree!

[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

Opinion column here detailing how Europe's green policies are magnifying the worst effects of their economic and unemployment crisis with massive increases in heating costs. And they're full of shit on CO2 as well in Europe because coal-fired power-plants are replacing the nuclear plants that are being shut down thanks to decades worth of hardcore anti-nuclear paranoia.

As long as AGW is controlled by the most radical members of the environmentalist movement then there will be no progress made on this issue.

While you pay extra for 'clean' diesel at the pumps, well no one does,
keep belching all those particles, and now people in some parts of Europe
are burning wood again for heat.

95 octane in Italy 1.80 a litre now.

It's a big mess.

[Thanos]

One thing that's bothered me about the scientific community is how much the scientists themselves are deriding scientific and technological solutions to the problem. Everything from better scrubber/filter systems to to below-ground sequestration to better efforts at eliminating more heat-sink soot particulates to the real wild stuff of orbital screens to reflect UV away before it reaches the atmosphere are all automatically dismissed. Instead it seems it's the scientists themselves that are first on the bandwagon of "we're doomed unless we shut off every gas engine right now and never start any of them up again for the rest of human history". The improvements alone to the basic working of the internal combustion engine in terms of fuel efficiency and reduction in emission pollution that have occurred over the last 20-25-30 years show that technological solutions and improvements can, and will, make a major difference. So why are the scientists not supporting this when it's their own vocation and fields of research that have done more to improve the quality of life over the last 200 years than anything else that's ever occurred in history.

CNRL wants to develop algae-based systems where a huge chunk of CO2 would be eaten up by the algae on site at the upgraders and refineries. But they're an oil company, which means they're automatically worse than Hitler and Satan combined, so fuck them and their new-fangled scientific-solutiony ways, dadgummit.

[peck420]

How did taking apart a piss poor article turn into bashing on scientists?

I don't know which scientists (environmental) you talk/listen too, Thanos? None of the ones I deal with are very doom and gloom at all. Pragmatic? Sure, but that is a far cry from doom and gloom.

They have been more then helpful in providing time and expertise in my quest for zero carbon footprint at home and at the office.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

95 octane in Italy 1.80 a litre now.

95 octane?

The best we get in California is 91 octane.

Once in a blue when I am in Nevada I fill up at an airport (Nevada doesn't prohibit this) and I get 100 octane for a smidge more than 91 octane autombile 'premium'. Makes a big difference in performance at high altitude.

[Xort]

Another 'study' that is misleading by design meant to get headlines?

And it's about global warming?

I'm shocked!

[Thanos]

peck420 peck420:

How did taking apart a piss poor article turn into bashing on scientists?

I don't know which scientists (environmental) you talk/listen too, Thanos? None of the ones I deal with are very doom and gloom at all. Pragmatic? Sure, but that is a far cry from doom and gloom.

They have been more then helpful in providing time and expertise in my quest for zero carbon footprint at home and at the office.

Most of the AGW and climate scientists I've seen on TV and the internet have been of the Suzuki/Gore "apocalypse imminent" variety. I shy away from the hacks like Monckton from the other side but the more serious scientists like Lomborg/McKitrick(?)/Peiser who are pragmatic skeptics are treated like the enemy.

I want a solution here but the hardcores, especially the Hansen/Gore/McKibben ilk and the rest of the puritans aren't going to let one happen.

[Zipperfish]

peck420 peck420:

We basically agree.

Yes, I think we do. And yes, the study is bascially a joke.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

jj2424 jj2424:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Eagerly awaiting the usual "but who wrote this review" bs from the righties...

Egg on your face.

Anyway why would we care who wrote up the press release review when the interesting author is the one who organized the paper itself. It's John Cook again. Which means it's more BS from SkepticalScience.com.

SketicalScience.com is kind of the MediaMatters of the Climate blogosphere.

Basically Cook got all his Climate Kidz together and said "let's put on a survey".

But seeing as what we're really talking about here is a climate blog's opinion pretending it's science, it's fair to hear the opinions of the other blogs who might disagree with the spinning eyed, indoctrinated, irregulars of SkepticalScience.com.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i- ... -it-means/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/f ... dorse-agw/

Well, we don't agree on much, but I have to agree on this one.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The study itself doesn't make that claim. Although 97% probably isn't that far off.

I've not met a single academic, climate-scientist or other, who denies AGW. If they're out there, they're not running in academic circles. It's not something you hear of anywhere but on FOX or the internet.

I've met a couple. Of course, by dint of my profession (environmental scientist) I meet a lot of scientists. The way I figure it, it's always good to have a couple of contrarians out there. But, like I alluded to earlier, there's not much discussion about it among climate scientists because, when they're talking about, say, observed shifts from rain-fed to glacier-fed streams, or how fast a mine pit will fill up with rain in 50 years, they pretty much assume that everyone in the room accepts the changes predicted by AGW theory.

I meet a lot of skeptical engineers and geologists though. One friedn of mine says that it's all due to the shift of the magnetic pole and its efefct on the magnetosphere.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

While you pay extra for 'clean' diesel at the pumps, well no one does,
keep belching all those particles, and now people in some parts of Europe
are burning wood again for heat.

95 octane in Italy 1.80 a litre now.

It's a big mess.

They burned tires for heat in Kabul. Plus all the cars were old (Toyota graveyard of the world) and burned crappy diesel, from Pakistan, where the Pakis probably dumped all their hazardous waste. the air smelled like a burned match.

Anyways I met with buddy from the Afghan Environment Agency and asked if there was some way we could stop people from burning tires, since the air in Kabul is toxic. He was a nice guy. very patiently looked at me and said "Zip, if these people don't burn tires, their children won't be alive in the morning." "ooooh..."

Welcome to Kabul.