Yeah, yeah, yeah. The funny thing in all this is that I act like I believe while you act like you don’t. Funny thing motivations or lack thereof. Oreskes? Yeah… she is amazing. Wonder what Judith Curry would say? Also, that one scientist was cited by someone else. I laughed am still laughing about the ice-free Arctic. I cannot remember which of you bright lights it was but I think that it was you who at one point was defending the scientist in question’s views with but it was 2016 plus or minus three years so 2013 could be 2016 could be 2019. I am sooooo much happier that we are now back with the “could be” ice-free by 2050-thing HURRAY! progress without reducing CO2 emissions. Amazing! Oh wait, maybe it was CFImages. You know he studied with a climate scientist? who was apparently “world famous” which is just as good, apparently, as being “peer-reviewed.” Unless, of course your view are counter to the accepted wisdom in which case you are, how is it?, paid off by Big Oil! :roflmao:
First time I can find anyone bringing it up was you, here:
Here was my response:
[quote=“Vay”]Er, IPCC models predicted this:
Notice how their predictions are more conservative than observed reality? That’s because the very nature of the consensus building exercise, that is so useful at establishing the veracity of key facts, TENDS TO LEAD TO CONSERVATISM WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING PREDICTIONS ABOUT FUTURE SCENARIOS. This is because even the most reticent parties must agree upon the statements that are made.
In any case, it was Maslowski who predicted the Arctic would be ice free… by 2016, plus or minus three years. And he’s looking to be just about on the money. Volume is down by 75%. The little recovery(!) you and the Daily Mail think is so awesome, is the sixth lowest minimum on record.[/quote]
…and later I said this:
The trend has continued apace since thing. Is the Arctic going to be ice-free in summer by 2016-19? Almost certainly not. Is the Arctic continuing to lose humongous amounts of ice each year? Yes, it is. Now: which issue is a trivial fucking denialist talking point, and which is actually important to civilization? Regardless, we can all guess which you’ll focus on.
Still waiting to hear the answer for this all-important question. Come on, give us the proof that the IPCC has “walked its predictions back”.
Does it still claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2030? Oh wait, that was just a (blah blah excuse excuse) section of the IPCC report and therefore doesn’t count, right?
Gosh. The breeze seems to have increased from 0.15 miles per hour to 0.176. CLEARLY, global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!! is happening). The 0.176 at 3:24 pm this afternoon is a NEW RECORD!!!
When I posted that list of your repertoire of favored logical fallacies (which, combined with Apostles Creed renditions, comprises basically all of what you post on the topic), I somehow forgot the most important one- your favorite:
Sound anything like what you said I said? And then I cited evidence of the state of the glaciers- which you of course ignored.
Nice diversion, though. Now where’s your evidence that the IPCC has walked back predictions on an ice-free Arctic? In your ass, would be my guess.
Still waiting for the evidence that the IPCC walked back its predictions on Arctic melt.
In the interests of honesty, though, I will share this: I’ve actually started using a Fred Smith-ism! The other day, I was arguing with an anti-vaxxer, and I said “anti-vaccine nut…SORRY!!! fewer-greener-safer-vaccine proponent!!!” In the future, I think I will also do that with Creationism/Intelligent Design.
Now for recent “Impacts” news:
Killer Heat Grows Hotter around the World - Hot enough for you? This is just the beginning
The article fails to mention Japan, having yet another record-breaking heat wave:
Tokyo Heat Wave Lasted Eight Days, Doubling All-Time Record; 55 Confirmed Dead in Japan
Meanwhile the bears in northern India haven’t heard the news that Spencer and Christy have yet again disproved global warming:
Bears no longer hibernating in Uttarakhand
And, since people love to talk about the costs of fighting global warming, here’s another “cost of not fighting” story:
Record-setting bloom of toxic algae in North Pacific
…resulting in…
Huge Toxic Algal Bloom Shuts Down West Coast Fisheries
I’m sure pro-business Republicans are concerned as all hell about the money this is costing everyday, hardworking salt-of-the-Earth fishermen.
OMG!!! LET’S ACT NOW!!! URGENTLY!!!
Citibank have projected that it will cost $190.2 trillion over the next 25 years to transition to a low carbon, renewables based energy system. That’s total projected energy spend.
Too much?
And what are the costs again of NOT acting urgently or otherwise? Or is it something like no $$$ value as it will be IMPENDING DOOM!!!
That would be $192 trillion.
As usual, I must once again remind you to reread what you, yourself, have posted. The TRANSITION to the low-carbon energy paradigm will cost $192 trillion. Again, after you reread what you, yourself, have posted, can you advise what the costs of NOT acting are? Again, by not acting, I mean the part where we don’t spend the $192 trillion to “transition” to the state of nirvana called low-carbon heaven.
[quote=“cfimages”]Citibank have projected that it will cost $190.2 trillion over the next 25 years to transition to a low carbon, renewables based energy system. That’s total projected energy spend.
Too much?[/quote]
Meh. A lot of people like to talk finance, but these numbers are completely meaningless in the context of a global paradigm change. Do you think there were penpushers sitting around at the beginning of the industrial revolution, fretting over the existence of steam engines and wondering how much it was all going to cost? I suppose there were a few, but today we think of them as misguided.
Whether we “transition to a low carbon, renewables based energy system” or not, people will continue to turn up for work, shuffle paper around, dig holes in the ground, build stuff and tear things down. In other words, life will go on, one way or the other, and money will slosh from here to there. The only thing that will change is the description of ‘here’ and ‘there’.
Besides, the whole point of this transition is that it will be profitable. Why are we using the word “cost”? The word is “investment”.
Well - to take one simple example - we’re looking at apocalyptic famine in the second half of this century because phosphate and nitrogen fertilizers will become impossibly expensive due to resource scarcity. Still, I guess most of the dead will be brown people, who are just a bunch of oxygen thieves anyway. So no big deal, on balance, eh?
As usual, I must once again remind you to reread what you, yourself, have posted. The TRANSITION to the low-carbon energy paradigm will cost $192 trillion. Again, after you reread what you, yourself, have posted, can you advise what the costs of NOT acting are? Again, by not acting, I mean the part where we don’t spend the $192 trillion to “transition” to the state of nirvana called low-carbon heaven.[/quote]
No. The total energy spend associated over 25 years with a move to low-carbon energy will be $190.2 trillion. That’s total spend - renewables + current energy sources. The total energy spend based on current practices ie without action to transition will be $192 trillion.
Or if you like, we’re spending $192 trillion on energy over the next 25 years regardless. We can save $2 trillion if we actively pursue low-carbon renewables. And that gap will become larger beyond 25 years.
Hmmmm… where have I heard this before? Was it before or after the latest missive on peak oil? the world running out of the color blue… how birds will no longer have feathers, etc.
So the total energy spend is $192 trillion over the next 25 years so that makes $8 trillion per year in energy costs? and you posted this, then, to shock us into going Wow! We must act urgently! I intend to share this with several of my friends to help raise awareness. See! I am doing my part!
I’m glad you’ll be doing your part. As you often talk about costs and development, I’m sure you’re happy to know that in terms of energy costs, urgent action will be cheaper than the inaction you previously favored. 
You have that almost right. Let me rephrase:
[quote]URGENT ACTION NOW!!! will be cheaper than the inaction you previously (strike favored) observed.
[/quote]
There now you have it right!
Fred, peak oil happened years ago. Almost exactly as predicted. We’re now on that bit of the curve where stuff just gets worse and worse. You know, kinda like with climate change?
The UK economy is already going down the toilet partly because they used up all their oil and gas and don’t have the brains or the will to re-configure the economy around that uncomfortable fact. Instead, they have to go cap in hand to that nice Mr Putin for their energy supplies.
Hearing a lot about something does not prove that it isn’t happening.
Well, that is certainly one interpretation of $34/barrel oil.
Fred, a comet is going to hit the earth and destroy humankind as we know it, what do you do?
Buy a selfie stick for what promises to be one hell of a Facebook posting?
Well, that is certainly one interpretation of $34/barrel oil.[/quote]
Attention span of a gnat, fred. Just like with temperature records. Let’s hope there aren’t any wars, revolutions, or whatnot to disrupt your happy rainbow world, eh?
Even at $34/barrel for crude, gasoline still retails at ~$0.70/litre, or $0.08/kWh(th). Solar is now about $0.06/kWh(e). A combustion engine converts to mechanical energy at about 30% efficiency, and an electric motor 80%, implying mechanical energy cost for transportation is $0.27/kWh (gasoline) and $0.08/kWh (solar).
Still, we wouldn’t want any real-world physics or economics to intrude into fred’s religion, would we? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: