Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 Next
Comments 6651 to 6700:
-
Darinscoop at 05:28 AM on 24 September 2020Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?
As far as CO gasses creating a shielded heat layer between the the surface and the earths atmospherer, it's difficult to think of molecular clustes chaining together unless the gasses lie on a 2-dimensional plain. Wouldn't heat tend to escape through any means of CO gasses if clusters exists at differing elevations? Also, have you ever try to boil water from a heat source that either came from the top or the sides of the container? I'm still trying to understand this logic.
-
michael sweet at 01:52 AM on 24 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
This Guardian news article describes a poll where 70% of voters were in favor of climate action. The article claims that this result indicates that in the upcoming election politicians who are climate deniers will suffer from voters who want climate action.
I hope that is true. Even if it is not true this election, this is a much stronger result than polls in the past about climate action. More politicians are discussing renewable energy and other climate actions. Hopefully we will start to see real action with the next presiident.
Vote Climate!
-
MA Rodger at 22:52 PM on 22 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Keithy @10,
Luckily there are many folk who consider it useful to provide an answer for such a basic question. And if you were to search the wonderous world-wide internet you would quickly encounter the results of their considerations.
-
Keithy at 15:20 PM on 22 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
So, what is net zero emissions?
-
Keithy at 15:29 PM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Nigelj, are you the only person in the universe who doesn't respond well to having other people's words put in your mouth?
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic snipped.
You have been warned several times. Stick to a topic. avoid throw-away snipes, and at least try to engage in some constructive dialog.
Once again: Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
-
John Hartz at 08:10 AM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
nigelj: I respectfully choose not to answer a hypothetical question. :)
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
John Hartz ha ha yes perhaps. However M Sweet started the bickering. I am normally a very easy going person and very forgiving, but I dont respond well when people deliberately put words in my mouth or repeatedly accuse me of doing or saying things Im not doing or saying. How about you John?
-
John Hartz at 04:13 AM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Michael Sweet & nigelj: Your recent exchanges remind me of the old-time radio show of my youth, The Bickersons.
Per Wikipedia:
The Bickersons was a radio comedy sketch series that began September 8, 1946, on NBC, moving the following year to CBS where it continued until August 28, 1951. The show's married protagonists, portrayed by Don Ameche (later by Lew Parker) and Frances Langford, spent nearly all their time together in relentless verbal war.
-
nigelj at 11:54 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
michael sweet @4
"In your comment you suggest people will think that 1-2 trillion dollars per year is expensive for a renewable energy system."
I did. Its obvious because $ 1 trillion dollars sounds a lot to the average person. It needed to be put in context that it is only 1.5% of gdp, and right at the top of the article. However those people who read the whole article would see that it isn't such a large sum, so your comments are not really connected to the point I was making.
"You do not consider what fossil energy would cost....."
Where do I not consider that? I know perfectly well what a fossil fuel system would cost, a great deal as you correctly point out.
Please stop telling me things I already know. Please stop implying Im not aware these things, or that I disagree with these things.
It might help if you had said "people should consider...." Is that what you meant?
"In the report cited they say that a renewable energy system will cost less than a fossil fuel system. "
I have read the report. I said its "a good report". So obviously I agree with the report.
I mean with all due respect, what the hell are you going on about?
-
michael sweet at 10:30 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Nigelj:
In your comment you suggest people will think that 1-2 trillion dollars per year is expensive for a renewable energy system. You do not consider what fossil energy would cost. If fossil energy costs 3 trillion dollars per year and renewable energy costs 2 trillion dollars per year than the renewable energy is a bargain. In the report cited they say that a renewable energy system will cost less than a fossil fuel system. In addition, the reduction in pollution from using renewable energy will save trillions of dollars in costs, especially health costs and climate costs.
You cannot look at just the cost of renewable energy. You have to compare the cost of renewable energy to the cost of fossil energy. This is a common mistake people make when looking at energy systems.
-
nigelj at 09:04 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Michael Sweet @2, what possible relationship does that have to anything I wrote? Where did I imply continuing fossil fuel use is free?
-
michael sweet at 08:34 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Nigelj:
Keep in mind that even if we continmued using fossil fuels energy would not be free. It would cost about the same to keep using fossil fuels except there would be all the health and environmental damage from fossil fuels. In addition, fossil fuels are starting to run short and prices would increase by 2050.
-
Keithy at 08:26 AM on 20 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
John, are you just deleting posts now? ????
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped. Your previous comment was removed for sloganeering, a violation of this site's Comments Policy. Not reading it is unacceptable, as is not constructing comments to comply with it. Had you have read it, as you were counseled several times previously, you'd have known that.
-
nigelj at 07:29 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
The editors choice article is really good but one nit pick. It starts out by saying "The world must get to net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century, and can make it happen for a cost that is relatively small in global terms, $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year, a new report has concluded."
Most people will go WTF $1 trillion is not small. And we know many people only read the title and first couple of paragraphs in articles.
It would have been better to include the text from further into the article that this is only 1.5% - 2% of gdp. Get this right at the top of the article.
Think of your audience! -
PapaWhisky at 03:18 AM on 20 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
Yes, I had read the report. It's why I posed the question.
You need to go to the appendix to see their discussion of "IMPACT OF HIGH ELECTRIFICATION"
"In our modeled cases, we assume future load shapes will be
similar to today’s, largely driven by commercial activity (work
hours), seasonal changes, and especially by air conditioning
demand in the summer."They do a sensitivity in the Appendix on 'High Electrification". Instead of 1200 GW of cumulative new additions to 2035 they forecast a need of just over 1600 GW.
Also:
"Note that we do not consider any load flexibility, which
significantly underestimates the overall system flexibility
available in the model."I am guessing they did not consider Vehicle to Grid
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened and activated link breaking page formatting.
-
John Hartz at 01:27 AM on 20 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy asserts:
My point was Al Gore baited the denialists: he sparked the fire of debate that was necessary to solve the problem which, as a politcian, he knew required long lead times from a practical pov.
Keithy has it backwrds. The denialists made Al Gore into their whipping boy because he was effective in sounding the alarm about man-made climate change to audiences around the world — a campaign he began long before the premier of an Inconvenient Truth.
-
Keithy at 13:31 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
My point was Al Gore baited the denialists: he sparked the fire of debate that was necessary to solve the problem which, as a politcian, he knew required long lead times from a practical pov.
Business, lol... Where does the rubber hit the road again? The answer is in long lead times.
I ask you: should I be moderated for suggesting such a tepidly moderate argument?
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint struck with warning.
Final Warning
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Keithy at 13:28 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
nigelj, I haven't read his book: like most normal people.
You have to admit I was attacked for my very reasonable points of view and then moderated whilst my attackers were not.
Atleast you understand I have valid points. If you find them contendable fair enough but none-the-less you have still found them valid unlike your moderators who are obviously biased.
Going to your first paragraph: I'm basically saying it was a deliberate strategy and that seems to be the very point I was attacked for by multiple opponents and then finally the moderator himself. How can anyone have a discussion on this forum when there is no discussion allowed?
Sure you can say there would have been discussion anyway... that doesn't take one iota away from my reasonable pov? Only to an extremeist would it nullify my pov, which you seemingly seem to agree with to aleast some degree- unlike others.
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint struck through with Warning #2.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
[BL] additional moderation complaints and inflammatory statements snipped.
-
nigelj at 12:59 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @53, Al Gore may well have helped motivate the denialists in America, to an extent, for the reasons you suggest. Im not so sure it was a deliberate strategy.
And I would suggest the denialists would have been very active anyway even if he didnt exist, given the media have run numerous articles on the science, and given there are plenty of denialists in other countries where his book and movie have only been seen by a tiny minority of people.
Do you see it differently? If so why? Its just that its hard to understand where you are really going. What do you think of his book?
-
Keithy at 12:36 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
michael, are you saying I started with the insults? The moderators here don't know what ad hominem attack is...
Snip
Moderator Response:[RH] Moderation complaint removed. Please read commenting policies.
-
michael sweet at 11:31 AM on 19 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
Papawhisky:
On page 21 of the report they say:
"Our modeling approach represents a conservative strategy for
achieving 90% clean energy. Various complementary approaches
could help achieve this deep decarbonization, with potential for
even lower system costs and accelerated emissions reductions.
Demand-side approaches include demand response and flexible
loads, such as flexible electric vehicle charging and flexible water
heating—which could play a large role if building and vehicle
electrification occurs more rapidly than envisioned in our core
cases." My emphasis.It appears to me that they have some transportation electrification (I did not try to find out how much transportation electrification they use). They say this electrification could progress faster and more renewable energy could be accomodated.
According to Connelly et al 2016, when larger parts of the economy are electrified it allows a greater percentage of electricity to be renewable and less storage is required. Connelly et al use electromethane for storage which would complement the proposal described in the OP.
-
michael sweet at 11:03 AM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy,
If you complain about the moderation they will delete your posts, If you continue to complain they will ban you. If you want to continue posting try to stay on topic and don't insult other posters.
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 19 September 2020Highlighting some expert interviews from Denial101x
Thank's for these splendid videos!
-
PapaWhisky at 05:28 AM on 19 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
The report does not seem to account for a significant increase in EV usage ... which is the entire point of decarbonizing the grid, right?
Moderator Response:[JH] Here's the url for the report: https://www.2035report.com/
I also embedded the url into the title of the report in the first paragaprh of the OP.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:09 AM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Pretty much textbook trolling technique, and zero substance. Seriously, this is not worth bothering with. To all, again, I advise DNFTT.
-
MA Rodger at 23:47 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @48,
It would be good if you could be specific about what Gore did to 'light this conversational fire'.
If it is the 2007 'An Inconvenient Truth' film then you will have an uphill battle getting any agreement here as this is very late. Perhaps you do have some specific denialist response post-2007 in mind, but we idiots here are not mind-readers.
My 'touch of unreasonability' was prompted by the possibility that you were putting the Gore 'ignition' at an earlier date. He had run for the Democratic nomination for President in 1988 and was a well-kown AGW campaigner through the 1980s and, of course, did become vice-presidential candidate in 1992. But again, if that is the period you have in mind, along with some resulting girding-up of the denialist effort, we are not mind-readers and without any assistance of what you actually mean, I for one see no such earlier process at work.
And I'm at a loss where the wind turbines come in to all this.
-
michael sweet at 22:27 PM on 18 September 2020Siberia’s 2020 heatwave made ‘600 times more likely’ by climate change
Luiz:
As the OP states "the methods used in the analysis have been published in previous attribution studies." The methods used have been validated. It takes 6 months to a year to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scientists have found that if an article is published in 2020 that says in 2019 there was record heat no-one pays attention. They have developed methods to analize data in real time. Then they are able to get the news out while the problem is still ongoing.
Citing a study of a conservative hoax and comparing it to established science does not really make much of a point. The point here is that science was able to rapidly evaluate the conservative hoax and determine that it was incorrect. By contrast, the climate claim was based on a method that has been peer reviewed.
-
Keithy at 21:24 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Great, MA Rodger, but don't you think you're becoming a touch unreasonable, if not abstract yourself, as toward my argument?
I just said Al Gore lit the conversational fire and the deniers kept it going by forced move... now we have multi megawatt wind turbines as a result- plus much more- to thank him for!
I thought my idea was quite straight forward to follow actually, instead there seems to be a whole team of idiots on here set to bark at anyone daring to have a brain cell that dare deviate from the whistle blown song sheet.
Moderator Response:[JH] Argumentative ad hominem attack stuck with warning.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
MA Rodger at 20:56 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @46,
We can actually go back further than 1976. Gore was aware of AGW science from his university days (so back in the 1960s) when he was taught by Revelle. And there is the incident of Revelle's name on the Fred Singer 1991 Cosmos article which has often been wielded by denialaists against Gore. And I do recall some saying the reason for Singer getting the aged Revelle's co-authorship on Singer's article was actually because of Al Gore's prominent AGW activism within the politics of that time and Gore's association with Revelle.
-
Luiz19760 at 20:17 PM on 18 September 2020Siberia’s 2020 heatwave made ‘600 times more likely’ by climate change
"The findings are yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal."
Why not wait before posting and avoid the embarrassment of a retraction?
Like this pathetic one:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
-
Keithy at 19:36 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Well, MA Rodger , I give you credit for not concluding I'm a machine or whatever those other blokes seem to have summised - but I will check out that link... I never knew Gore was into that far back. 1976 is when I was born....
Oh yeh, Motorhead and the LX Torana came out that year!
Moderator Response:[JH] Off-topic struck.
-
MA Rodger at 19:04 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Addressing the assertion that "Al Gore sparked the deniers" is made more difficult by the term "deniers" being used as a euphemism for 'industry actively preventing AGW mitigation' (although not always and not always obviously so) and also because Al Gore has had such a long record of calling for AGW mitigation. As a Congressman in 1976, Gore held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change." So the 'sparking' alluded-to could be referring to events as far back as the 1970s.
-
Eclectic at 18:58 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Philippe , sadly you are right. Many signs, from the very beginning.
An interesting mix of DK and WUWT.
A machine? No. Even a Romanian programmer never aims so low.
-
Keithy at 17:41 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Hey, Phillipe, do you and Eclectic share the same shift?
Eclectic falsely summarises someone elses words and you reinforce that false narrative and pretend your both geniuses: you must make this whole website so proud.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Plenty of electrons exist in other venues, since you are not interested in the scientific discussions here. -
Keithy at 17:37 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Yes, eclectic, I'm sure the whole world believes you're a legend in your own lunchbox- but seriously, you and I know you aren't!
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 16:45 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
The business ramblings, the scattering, it's getting kinda funny. This is a clear case of DNFTT. It's a somewhat interesting one though. These days, not impossible that it could be 100% machine. Some signs possibly point to a non-western origin/treatment.
-
Eclectic at 16:32 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @39 , thank you for clarifying that your chief concern is the role of Al Gore.
BaerbelW's post at #31 demonstrates that your own "suposition" was quite wrong. As you see, the deniers' propaganda machinery was gearing up, from the late 1980's. Some years before Gore made a big splash on the climate science scene.
And it's well to remember that Gore is not a scientist ~ there were some of his comments that were incorrect (in a trivial way) or were oversimplified (and mis-reported, often). But then, he wasn't speaking to scientists. He gets a B+ score for his "essay". Look in the scientific journals (and SkS website) if you want to improve your own knowledge about climate !
Keithy, it still seems mysterious why you made comments about business/ capitalism/ government ~ subjects where you are clearly speaking in empty slogans, and your understanding of them is shallow.
-
Keithy at 14:58 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Eclectic, I'm saying Al Gore got the ball rolling by making sweeping statments and forcing the deniers to nail their colours to the mast.
You're on some weird trip trying to imagine I am anti-science or something. Some business man you must be, lol!
Moderator Response:[DB] Ad hominem snipped. Do not make things personal.
-
Eclectic at 14:14 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Typo above : warming rate around 0.15 degreesC per decade.
-
Eclectic at 14:12 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy ~ Google is your friend. You can very easily research for yourself the gradual development of wind turbines.
But your questions are all over the place, like Brown's cows.
Concentrate the focus of your mind. Identify the basic "heart" of what problems are worrying you. What is it that is truly bothering you?
The world is warming gradually (from a slow start in the 1800's ). For the past 50 years, the average warming rate is around 0.15 degreesC : which is super-fast, in planetary/geological terms. And this will continue for decades into the future, with increasingly unpleasant consequences for most humans (but not for a very small minority).
Governments & businesses will adapt to some extent ~ but overall they won't enjoy it. And so the intelligent thing to do is to aim to minimize the adverse effects which are heading down the line toward us.
The deniers are in favor of taking no action ~ apart from bullshitting everyone. But what say you, Keithy? (It is a fruitless waste of time mulling over whether Al Gore stirred up the deniers, or the deniers stirred up Al Gore. That's history. We have to play the golfball from where it's sitting right now.)
Keithy , what do you think should be done about the AGW situation? Ignore it and deny its existence? Run around in circles in a panic? Surely, between those two crazy extremes, there is some prudent & logical action to be taken.
-
Keithy at 13:04 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Everyone: how powerful were wind turbines before Al Gore?
Moderator Response:[DB] Pointlessly off-topic snipped.
-
Keithy at 13:02 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Phillipe, are you saying your contribution is more valuable than anyone elses because you're in business?
In capitalism everyones in business...
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Keithy at 09:29 AM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
BaerbelW, how vocal were the deniers before Al Gore?
Moderator Response:[DB] Pointless and argumentative snipped.
-
nigelj at 07:52 AM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @16
"No, nigelj, the problem does not speak for itself.....Most people don't care unless they are made to... Al Gore made sweeping statements that big business knew had to be refuted because investment certainty is a must in big business."
I dont entirely agree. Most people globally are aware of the climate problem, you see this in polling studies, and clearly most people havent even read Al gores book or seen his movie, just look at the number of sales globally. I think this could be true even in America. Many people live in countries who probably haven't even heard of Al Gore. Likewise all those countries also have plenty of climate denialism.
Most people including business interests probably get their climate information mainly from general media commentary on the issue and from media commentary on the IPCC reports. The denialists and business are also reacting to media commentary.
The most we could say is Al Gore has probably polarised things a bit in the USA because of his political leanings, and yes I would agree to the extent that his book probably helped motivate the denialists. But they would have been pretty motivated anyway just by things like the IPCC reports. Do you really believe denialists would have just ignored those?
-
michael sweet at 06:05 AM on 18 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
Keithy,
Your comments do not make sense.
The video reports that it will be cheaper to build out a renewable energy system that provides 90% of electricity in the USA. That means people will make money building out the renewable energy system and consumers will pay less for energy. There will be threee times as many jobs in a renewable energy system that in a fossil system.
Fossil companies are backed into a corner because their products cost more and cause climate change (along with additional pollution problems). Since fossil fuel companies are among the largest in the world they are using their political power to keep out cheaper and more profitable renewable energy. Every year renewables are cheaper which drives more renewable build out.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:15 AM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
It seems indeed that the only point to be extracted from Keithy's contribution is that Al Gore caused the denialism we have been witnessing and the pseudo-debate that is now raging. As Baerbel showed us, the timeline does not support that argument.
It's possible that an in depth analysis could in fact reveal that Al Gore managed to attract on the subject more public attention, an attention that some of the work of deniers ironically had aimed at keeping off the problem. So, if anything can be gathered from Keithy's contribution so far, it's that Al Gore forced the denial supporing industries to ramp up their effort. Wow! How unexpected, how surprising. We are so fortunate that someone came up to bring that powerful insight.
If there is anything left for Keithy to argue, that would be that the overall balance of Al Gore's climate campaign has been negative, but he has come nowhere near supporting that with facts and analysis; it would be a very difficult case to make in my opinion. Surveys of the general public, even in the ill-informed US, where denial is the best organized, most vocal and best connected, shows that the majority of the population is well aware of the problem and realizes its importance.
-
BaerbelW at 03:18 AM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @various
This graphic from our resource section shows that your "theory" of Al Gore sparking the deniers is off by almost 20 years - denial thrived way before Al Gore's AIT:
-
Keithy at 01:19 AM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
MA Rodger, I think I was actually more saying the debate only exists because the deniers exist... Al Gore sparked the deniers and they put their money into advertising the whole issue.
Win, win, win scenario.
-
Keithy at 23:35 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
I agree with your summary of my POV, MA Rodger, but you must admit I'm replying to more than one person.
To delay mitigation by a decade or two is certainly worth a fortune and that really is the only point I'm making. Yet: who exactly are the interests requiring such a delay? I put it to you that they are vast....
Therefore, I also put it to you, that they require more than a decade or two:
..because basic high school economics teaches that all government intervention in the market place is difficult to recede owing to the fact that the economy itself develops its roots around it depending on it level of intervention: and in the case of fossil fuels we all know that level of interevention is of almost a planet like proportion.
-
MA Rodger at 20:23 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @various,
You seem to have been vacillating between two arguments which is not helpful to setting out yor arguement.
Your initial point @9 concerned Al Gore's 2007 message which had been described @5 as not being denier-proof. You counter saying Al Gore's message had to resonate with a public audience meaning 'facts' are less important than 'drama' and (perhaps less well explained by yourself) that such a message would kick off a public debate which would include denialists.
@14-16 you imply that industry/business is synonymous with 'denier' and set out a second argument that unless AGW mitigation is made worthwhile for industry, they would not assist in it. (@19 you rather confusingly seperate 'blue chip company' and 'the garden variety denier', presumably this latter being the denialist public with presumably the former requiring 'facts' and the latter 'drama'.) In terms of which of the two is more important, industry or public, you assert @23 that it is primarily industry/business which needs to be convinced of the requirement to act on AGW.
And in similar vein you state @25:-
"Entrepreneurs don't get out of bed to make peanuts. If there is no pathway for future profiteering then the ideas of capitalism, with its associated captains of industry, itself go to sleep."
In trying to make sense of this "waffling" (as Eclectic terms it), I would suggest that there are certain industries which have been attempting to push back against AGW mitigation. A giant oil company, for instance, has assets on its books in the shape of oil reserves worth billions and it would be employing divisions of workers to find more, such operations also being book assets worth billions. AGW science is saying these assets should not be exploited and the search for more oil reserves should stop immediately. That presents such companies with the prospect of massive loss of assets. So to delay such AGW mitigation, even by a decade or two, is a very profitable enterprise for such companies.
But the vast majority of industry would not react so aggressively against AGW mitigation. And industry does not "go to sleep" when faced by the need to mitigate AGW. Certainly some industries will have a harder time than others in the carbon-free energy-scarce world which will closely follow successful AGW mitigation. Many will see once-profitable business likely disappear (eg steel cans & glass jars replaced by bio-plastic-&-cardboard containers) but when the economic writing is on the wall such industries will evolve into new businesses, either scaled down or providing the modern replacement product.
Of itself, industry is not a barrier to AGW mitigation. What is a barrier is a denialist public whose existence prevents an honest political AGW debate (which is required to mitigate for AGW). Certain industries have actively promoted public & political denialism and they are likely greatly surprised how successful they have been at it so far.
Prev 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 Next
