Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,938
- Points
- 1,260
Thucydides said:
I'm sure I had read somewhere that nuclear energy also requires heavy government subsidies. It was an article in the National Post on the conservative argument against nuclear power.
Otherwise, I quite agree. It is the cleanest and most efficient form of energy available with the smallest footprint.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
RangerRay said:
With the current coal and natural gas prices in North America nothing else is competitive. Not wind. Not solar. Not all the other schemes. All only become viable with subsidies some of which are very long term. An example would be Ontario Power Authority's Standard Offer Program for Solar PV Energy which pays 42 cents a kw/h which is a huge subsidy and will be given out for 20 years.
saw this at SDA earlier today . . .
$535 million and no Green Jobs . . . Obama channeling his inner Dulton maybe ?
Hot Air:
The Obama administration made Solyndra, a solar-power manufacturing company, a symbol of its “green jobs” push in the Porkulus program. Barack Obama himself toured the factory, as did Barbara Boxer. Taxpayers ended up sinking $535 million into building Solyndra a new facility that promised to add jobs in the clean-energy sector. Instead, now that Solyndra has its new facility, it’s closing another older facility and will lay off dozens of employees and cancel the contracts for 150 more contract workers:
Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company’s plans to hire 1,000 workers.
Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.
All this for only $535,000,000 taxpayer dollars
http://tinyurl.com/2aojd6b
$535 million and no Green Jobs . . . Obama channeling his inner Dulton maybe ?
Hot Air:
The Obama administration made Solyndra, a solar-power manufacturing company, a symbol of its “green jobs” push in the Porkulus program. Barack Obama himself toured the factory, as did Barbara Boxer. Taxpayers ended up sinking $535 million into building Solyndra a new facility that promised to add jobs in the clean-energy sector. Instead, now that Solyndra has its new facility, it’s closing another older facility and will lay off dozens of employees and cancel the contracts for 150 more contract workers:
Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company’s plans to hire 1,000 workers.
Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.
All this for only $535,000,000 taxpayer dollars
http://tinyurl.com/2aojd6b
Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized
Article Link
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.
Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.
The charges of plagiarism don't negate one of the basic premises of the report — that climate scientists used poor statistics in two widely noted papers.
But the allegations come as some in Congress call for more investigations of climate scientists like the one that produced the Wegman report.
"It kind of undermines the credibility of your work criticizing others' integrity when you don't conform to the basic rules of scholarship," Virginia Tech plagiarism expert Skip Garner says.
U.N. CONFERENCE:Negotiators give talks another try
Led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, the 2006 report criticized the statistics and scholarship of scientists who found the last century the warmest in 1,000 years.
"The report was integral to congressional hearings about climate scientists," says Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. "And it preceded a lot of conspiratorial thinking polluting the public debate today about climate scientists."
But in March, climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts asked GMU, based in Fairfax, Va., to investigate "clear plagiarism" of one of his textbooks.
Bradley says he learned of the copying from a year-long analysis of the Wegman report made by retired computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif. Mashey's analysis concludes that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning." Copying others' text or ideas without crediting them violates universities' standards, according to Liz Wager of the London-based Committee on Publication Ethics.
Allegations under review
"The matter is under investigation," says GMU spokesman Dan Walsch by e-mail. In a phone interview, Wegman said he could not comment at the university's request. In an earlier e-mail Wegman sent to Joseph Kunc of the University of Southern California, however, he called the plagiarism charges "wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality."
The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report:
• "Actually fairly shocking," says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. "My own preliminary appraisal would be 'guilty as charged.' "
More on link
Article Link
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.
Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.
The charges of plagiarism don't negate one of the basic premises of the report — that climate scientists used poor statistics in two widely noted papers.
But the allegations come as some in Congress call for more investigations of climate scientists like the one that produced the Wegman report.
"It kind of undermines the credibility of your work criticizing others' integrity when you don't conform to the basic rules of scholarship," Virginia Tech plagiarism expert Skip Garner says.
U.N. CONFERENCE:Negotiators give talks another try
Led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, the 2006 report criticized the statistics and scholarship of scientists who found the last century the warmest in 1,000 years.
"The report was integral to congressional hearings about climate scientists," says Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. "And it preceded a lot of conspiratorial thinking polluting the public debate today about climate scientists."
But in March, climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts asked GMU, based in Fairfax, Va., to investigate "clear plagiarism" of one of his textbooks.
Bradley says he learned of the copying from a year-long analysis of the Wegman report made by retired computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif. Mashey's analysis concludes that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning." Copying others' text or ideas without crediting them violates universities' standards, according to Liz Wager of the London-based Committee on Publication Ethics.
Allegations under review
"The matter is under investigation," says GMU spokesman Dan Walsch by e-mail. In a phone interview, Wegman said he could not comment at the university's request. In an earlier e-mail Wegman sent to Joseph Kunc of the University of Southern California, however, he called the plagiarism charges "wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality."
The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report:
• "Actually fairly shocking," says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. "My own preliminary appraisal would be 'guilty as charged.' "
More on link
J
jhk87
Guest
Conservative commentators comparing everyone who doesn't agree with them to some sort of insidious Communist infiltration group shows some pretty frank colours on its own. It reeks of McCarthyism - political opportunism, paranoia about what cannot be seen and cannot really be proved and an "enemy" that is created from thin air.
NASA disagrees with you? They're co-opted.
The scientific organisations (ie, national academies) with the largest membership, and most accountable internal operations? Questionable.
Governments (Environment Canada, etc.) ? Questionable.
Polls showing the vast majority of scientists? Questionable.
Not questionable are pajamas media, the individual scientists quoted or select journalistic pieces. It makes this discussion a pointless self-congradulaory talk-shop with assertions backed by circular logic.
- Reaction score
- 6,163
- Points
- 1,160
jhk87 said:
No worse than the lefty loonie tunes that want to kill everyone that isn't willing to forsake technology and slide back to the years before fire. Or the ones that want me to pay India (one of the major producers of green house gases) carbon credits for driving my car :
Global warming will cease being a problem when the scientists that proclaim it and Al Gore retire with their ill gotten gains. It's a self licking ice cream cone.
J
jhk87
Guest
Thanks for making my point.
J
jhk87
Guest
You're right. Vague allegories linking anything to some ongoing Communist plot aren't bombastic and unproductive at all.
- Reaction score
- 6,163
- Points
- 1,160
jhk87 said:
Thanks for critiquing and clarifying the point(s) of your own posts.
J
jhk87
Guest
My posts have generally espoused the problems with trusting blogs and heavily biased media organisation versus credible and accountable scientific bodies, not some sort of "plot." To be fair, I did mention Joe McC, but it was supposed to be illustrative of the witch-hunt mindset that many sceptics seem to have fallen into. Simply writing off those who disagree with you (regardless of experience and training) as "red" or conspiratorial, especially when it's regarding large organisations with extensive accountability mechanisms, is folly. Simply shouting louder doesn't make one correct.
Besides, the idea that it's all about income redistribution is more than a bit misleading. There are many approaches being advocated - from improved industrial design to cap and trade (which I disagree with) to carbon capping and pollution taxing, and to some, (intentional) geoengineering, hardly the red commie plot that would see the UN take over the world.
Besides, the idea that it's all about income redistribution is more than a bit misleading. There are many approaches being advocated - from improved industrial design to cap and trade (which I disagree with) to carbon capping and pollution taxing, and to some, (intentional) geoengineering, hardly the red commie plot that would see the UN take over the world.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
jhk87 said:
If it is truly about the environment and not income redistribution by whatever means, then why are some countries exempt from carbon penalties? Is their carbon burning more efficiently and cleaner than ours?
If you want to address pollution then I'm all for it. If you want me to pay for "carbon credits" so China can build more coal fired hydro plants kindly go jump in the nearest lake.
- Reaction score
- 8,342
- Points
- 1,160
Forgive me, but weren't both the "witch hunts" and the "inquisition" creatures of the State?
It seems to me that currently many states are on the side of the hunters and inquisitors in pursuit of the heretic deniers.
It seems to me that currently many states are on the side of the hunters and inquisitors in pursuit of the heretic deniers.
- Reaction score
- 1,748
- Points
- 1,090
True enough, but I was making the point that each side of the argument was as bad as the other, and that the guy in the middle will ultimately loose.
Just the same, I agree with your observation that it's we heretics that are the ones being hunted by the state.
Just the same, I agree with your observation that it's we heretics that are the ones being hunted by the state.
Cancún climate change summit: Japan refuses to extend Kyoto protocol
Article Link
Talks threatened with breakdown after forthright Japanese refusal to extend Kyoto emissions commitments
The delicately balanced global climate talks in Cancún suffered a serious setback last night when Japan categorically stated its opposition to extending the Kyoto protocol – the binding international treaty that commits most of the world's richest countries to making emission cuts.
The Kyoto protocol was adopted in Japan in 1997 by major emitting countries, who committed themselves to cut emissions by an average 5% on 1990 figures by 2012.
However the US congress refused to ratify it and remains outside the protocol.
The brief statement, made by Jun Arima, an official in the government's economics trade and industry department, in an open session, was the strongest yet made against the protocol by one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
He said: "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances."
The move came out of the blue for other delegations at the conference.
"For Japan to come out with a statement like that at the beginning of the talks is significant," said one British official. "The forthrightness of the statement took people by surprise."
If it proves to be a new, formal position rather than a negotiating tactic, it could provoke a walk-out by some developing countries and threaten a breakdown in the talks. Last night diplomats were urgently trying to clarify the position.
The move provoked alarm among the G77, the grouping of developing countries who regard the Kyoto protocol as the world's only binding agreement on climate change cuts.
More on link
Article Link
Talks threatened with breakdown after forthright Japanese refusal to extend Kyoto emissions commitments
The delicately balanced global climate talks in Cancún suffered a serious setback last night when Japan categorically stated its opposition to extending the Kyoto protocol – the binding international treaty that commits most of the world's richest countries to making emission cuts.
The Kyoto protocol was adopted in Japan in 1997 by major emitting countries, who committed themselves to cut emissions by an average 5% on 1990 figures by 2012.
However the US congress refused to ratify it and remains outside the protocol.
The brief statement, made by Jun Arima, an official in the government's economics trade and industry department, in an open session, was the strongest yet made against the protocol by one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
He said: "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances."
The move came out of the blue for other delegations at the conference.
"For Japan to come out with a statement like that at the beginning of the talks is significant," said one British official. "The forthrightness of the statement took people by surprise."
If it proves to be a new, formal position rather than a negotiating tactic, it could provoke a walk-out by some developing countries and threaten a breakdown in the talks. Last night diplomats were urgently trying to clarify the position.
The move provoked alarm among the G77, the grouping of developing countries who regard the Kyoto protocol as the world's only binding agreement on climate change cuts.
More on link
J
jhk87
Guest
ModlrMike said:
"Hunted by the state" and "burned at the stake?" I hardly think so. And no-one has really addressed the idea of source self-checks, internal accountability mechanisms, and the "everyone but me is compromised" position being taken by many a sceptic.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Given the long term deflationary economy of Japan, opting out of Kyoto was the sensible thing to do. Why burden yourself with extra (and totally unnecessary) costs? When the money is going to be used to either fill the pockets of third world kleptocrats or subsidize foreign competition, then paying Kyoto Danegeld is even stupider. "When you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane".
So now we have two nations opting out, as well as nations like Canada, which only pay lip service (although there are still internal costs to pay as various agencies demand tax dollars for these "causes"). If all goes well, there will be deadlock in Cancun (funny how these conferences take place in posh resorts) and we will be spared the blackmail. Any bets on what the *next* global crisis demanding international intervention and the transfer of billions of dollars of wealth from the West will be?
So now we have two nations opting out, as well as nations like Canada, which only pay lip service (although there are still internal costs to pay as various agencies demand tax dollars for these "causes"). If all goes well, there will be deadlock in Cancun (funny how these conferences take place in posh resorts) and we will be spared the blackmail. Any bets on what the *next* global crisis demanding international intervention and the transfer of billions of dollars of wealth from the West will be?
Similar threads
