patrick.net

Yes, everybody already knows Al Gore is a crank.

Realistically, the only way to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions is with nuclear power. People aren't going to give up their cars, especially in the USA. Our whole development pattern in the USA assumes $1 gasoline.

cdw7503 says

So if I don't agree with you then I am an "untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives."

No, you can be free to disagree with me on anything. No harm no foul. Reasonable people can disagree, that is part of life.

When someone who begins to use deception and lies in order to support their argument (regardless of if they are right or wrong), then they start entering into the territory of an "untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives."

cdw7503 says

quoting what Lovelock actually says

But I did (see my posts above), and from his quotes it is clear that he believes GW is real, it is caused by CO2 and the effects are further into the future than he originally thought.

cdw7503 says

And what he and Al Gore have said in the past is NOT accurate. This is a MAJOR shift in thinking about the climate on the part of Lovelock. Surely you can agree about this. right?

Yes, he had a shift in thinking, but it was not as significant as you are making it out to be. "NOT accurate" is different from totally wrong, or doing an 180 on his position.

All he did was shift his time table further into the future, he did not say that that consequences were no longer an issue and we should no longer concern ourselves with GW.

Saying so is a disingenuous lie.

freak80 says

Realistically, the only way to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions is with nuclear power.

Yes, and for a long time Lovelock has advocated this.

Something that has gotten him in trouble with "green" groups.

leo707 says

Yes, and for a long time Lovelock has advocated this.
Something that has gotten him in trouble with "green" groups.

That's the thing. There's no other zero-CO2 energy source that's economical and available on a large enough scale to matter. At least not yet. If there is, I am not aware of it.

When compared to coal, I can't help but have the opinion that nuclear power is the lesser of the two evils. Nuclear power could at least slow the rate of CO2 buildup and warming, giving humans and ecosystems more time to adapt.

There is one word that explains everything you should know about global warming (yes, warming...which just might lead to a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario of a new ice age, but only if all of the factors line up).

Food.

The civilization story as we know it depends on vast quantities of food: grown, harvested, transported and processed with vast quantities of energy. Every step of the way is dependent upon the STABILITY and PREDICTABILITY of the weather.
In other words, the arguments that say "we don't know what the climate is doing" actually prove the point that we have a major problem on our hands right now: not in the future centuries. Money won't buy more food if the farmers can't grow it, and the farmers can't grow it if the weather isn't at least reasonably similar to what it has been for the last 100 years (the cycle of developing new species that can handle a large change in climate). So, the statement that "weather is not climate" is bullshit. Stability of weather is FOOD, and climate is the stability of the weather (as compared to the weather when the food species were adapted to that weather pattern).
The "hockey stick" graph of temperature is not significant in whether it is man-made or not: it is significant in its exponential representation of the change in temperature over the last 100 years. It does not show a 'peak' or any sign of slowing down. The thermal inertia of the oceans and the ice packs have moderated the change for one or maybe two of the most recent generations.

Then that's it. The fruit trees bloom too early, then freeze, then have no fruit. The corn grows, but sees a drought during pollination and grows no seed (this year, not "by 20XX"). The farmers with cattle get rid of their cattle and don't buy more because there won't be corn to feed them. The semi-arid grasslands dry up and fires cover more acreage each year (now..not in "20XX").

Look around. Agriculture is a system that predicts the future from average weather by its very existence. It is now failing to predict 2 years (insect and bird patters alone will show this), let alone the decades necessary for government planning.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/16/855861/warmer-temperatures-make-new-usda-plant-zone-map-obsolete/

You can't just drill for more food. Someone has to grow it, and they can't grow it under unstable conditions.

freak80 says

leo707 says

Yes, and for a long time Lovelock has advocated this.

Something that has gotten him in trouble with "green" groups.

That's the thing. There's no other zero-CO2 energy source that's economical and available on a large enough scale to matter. At least not yet. If there is, I am not aware of it.

When compared to coal, I can't help but have the opinion that nuclear power is the lesser of the two evils. Nuclear power could at least slow the rate of CO2 buildup and warming, giving humans and ecosystems more time to adapt.

Most of the things people are using energy for (some 15% of the grid is now for internet porn (video.whether people are naked or not, is porn)) don't need to be done. A car weighs 2000 lbs. A person weighs 200: ergo, we are burning up 10 times as much to get people to work as is necessary.
The suggestion that we have a crisis because we can't meet energy "demand" is simply a misdirection: the demand has nothing to do with Malthusian needs, and thus, the arguments over energy 'solutions' and the 'cost' of a carbon tax are simply entertainment (Giant stone heads on Easter Island) while we ignore the resulting destruction going on around us. Everyone can argue, but few can build an electric car or grow their own food without doing some actual learning and work.

Airplanes use a crapload of energy.