Categories
Open Thread

Open Thread 8 – BNC Christmas and New Year 2011

So, the year that was — 2010 — comes to a close, with 115 more BraveNewClimate blog posts in the archives, 13,500 more comments and 430,000 extra hits.

Thanks to all the many BNC guest posters (Gene Preston, Geoff Russell, Peter Lang, John Morgan, DV82XL, Marion Brook, Tony Kevin, John Rolls, Paul Babie, Jim Green, Tom Wigley, George Stanford, Len Koch, Rob Parker, Michael Goggin), numerous regular (and irregular) commenters, and the thousands of readers (including RSS subscribers and general lurkers), for keeping this online community as a thriving and interesting place to visit.

Here’s a toast to another interesting and productive year in 2011!

I’ll be taking a blogger’s holiday for a few weeks over the period 25 December 2010 to 8 January 2011. It’s as good a time as any for a writing break, given that this is a traditionally quiet period in the World of WordPress. From past experience in 2008 and 2009, the blog’s hits and comments dwindle to a trickle over this holiday period, as people go offline and get a life — or else burn their candles at both ends in merriment, partying, relaxing and [in Australia] taking summer holidays. So it’s a good time for me to also recharge my intellectual batteries. Not that I’ll go away entirely — I’ll still be hanging around online and commenting here and there, as the mood takes me. The conversation never dies, it merely quietens!

Still, that certainly doesn’t mean that YOU can’t have your say, about anything to do with climate change or energy, really. That’s what this Christmas and New Year Open Thread is for…

By Barry Brook

Barry Brook is an ARC Laureate Fellow and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania. He researches global change, ecology and energy.

324 replies on “Open Thread 8 – BNC Christmas and New Year 2011”

Thanks for all your efforts Barry. I’d give you and BNC contributors credit for doing so much and for what I believe has probably contributed to yesterday’s really important policy announcement.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/anna-bligh-opens-door-to-nuclear-power/story-fn59niix-1225975663810

I congratulate Anna Bligh, Australian Labor Party’s National President, for her announcement that Labor should remove its ban on nuclear power. The fact she has made this announcement suggests it is a near certainty that Labor will remove its opposition to nuclear power at the Labor Party’s National Conference in December 2011.

That means that Labor will probably remove its opposition to nuclear at all levels of government: federal and state.

That is an excellent Christmas present to Australia. Great news.

Like

Peter,Don’t get too enthusiastic about the prognostications of Anna Bligh.As a Queenslander I am only too well aware of the slippery nature of the Beattie/Bligh government.You may have noticed from the the article you linked to that there are a lot of ifs,buts and maybes.
To put it quite succinctly,I don’t trust the bitch any further than I could kick her.

Anyway,thanks for your efforts,Barry.I suspect that 2011 will be a very interesting year,probably in ways that won’t please a lot of people.

BTW,my resident Podargus,having presented the two new additions to their family to me in an Ironbark about 20 metres in front of my verandah,are now gadding about their territory in ways inaccessable to my 500mm telephoto lens.
Never mind,they’ll be back.

Cheers – Glen Daly

Like

Merry Christmas to all on BNC and many thanks to Barry for all the work he has put in, aside from his daytime job :), to make this site (IMHO)the stand-out climate and energy blog in Australia.
I also see and feel a shift in the anti-nuclear populace (including politicians) and hope that 2011 will be the year when nuclear power is accepted as THE answer to climate change and energy security without sacrificing growth and improved living conditions for all people of this world. Having attended many of Barry’s public presentations and debates, listened to numerous radio and TV interviews by him and read many of the articles and papers he has had published, I agree with PL that Barry has been instrumental in powering this shift. Congratulations Barry and have a great holiday!

Like

You never know what to believe with politicians:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/happy-to-talk-but-no-to-nuclear-bligh-20101224-19766.html

Interesting to note this quote by Anna Bligh:

In Queensland we have an act of parliament that prohibits any nuclear facilities in (the state) and… would require a referendum (to change it).

Unless the nuclear ban is constitutionally entrenched (which it almost certainly isn’t), talk of needing a referendum is absolute rubbish.

You also never know who to believe in the media. The Australian and the SMH gave vastly different accounts of the story.

I only hope Peter’s optimism reflects the true direction Labor are heading – but I’m sceptical for now.

Happy holidays to all :)

Like

Thank you Barry for this site and your work. Thanks also to all the posters and commentors. I’m learning a lot about energy, the energy business, and energy politics here and through the linked sites. All the best for all in 2011!

Like

And like many others (as I said on the other thread) I salute Barry and all those who have made this site such a success in educating the public on the key issues surrounding climate change and/or the responses available to us.

May you all keep safe over the season and enjoy good health and good cheer.

Like

Absolutely with all those wishing good cheer and a fruitful 2011 to BNC crew. Essential reading always.
Despite the ducking and weaving of Anna B we should keep the pressure on while she’s No 1 and vulnerable.
Recommended xmas reading is ‘Solar’ by Ian McEwan. Bitingly funny novel about you-know-what. Cheers

Like

Agree with the general sentiment expressed above.
Ta Barry ,you’re a great “mensch”. Indeed good to see Anna Bligh coming around and making the nuclear power and uranium mining discussion “salonfähig” .

Like

I’m going to send a copy of my letter to Combet, Ferguson, Swan, Paul Howes to Bligh which insists that nuclear power for Australia be put on the convention agenda next year. All of you other bloggers, please send a request as well. And don’t pull your punches. It’s time for Australia to wake up and join the rest of the world as it races towards greater nuclear power generation. Happy Christmas everyone and thanks Barry for your great efforts.

Like

Barry,

Thanks to you and many here we are making progress but I wouldn’t count any chickens just yet.

Even though the pennies are dropping I suspect that we and the environment will have to suffer a lot more first..

Like

Shall we call 2011 the year we make real progress

Let’s all work hard in the spirit of Captain Picard to make it so ;-)

Let us each commit to writing to one ALP member of the Federal or state parliament or of their national executive, each week to advise that they join with those at National Conference who want a review of the policy.

Let us also direct them here to examine the excellent TCASE series and other relevant posts on matters they may deem pertinent.

New Years’ resolutions anyone?

Like

“Where to next?” Addinall.If you detect something better than a bum steer please let us know.

In that honourable rag,The Australian this morning, there is a report that some wind projects are on hold because of the REC confusion,to put it politely.

From the same source the WA premier is now touting nuclear power and his Labor opposite number is saying, no way.

Meanwhile,the new Victorian government wants to go back in time,like to the 19th century,and allow cattle back into high country NPs.

If you like SNAFUs then 2011 should be satisfying if not amusing.

Like

Article in The Australian regarding Barnett supporting nuclear energy:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/barnett-pushes-nuclear-future/story-e6frg6nf-1225976832741

Apparently they pay you *68 cents* per kWh for photovoltaic feed-in in Victoria now. Absolutely ridiculous! No wonder electricity bills are so high. If you paid $25 million to install a Hyperion Power Module, it would pay itself off in two months and generate 12.5 million dollars per month.

That is of course, hypothetically speaking, if the feed-in tarrifs were fairly applied across all different electricity generation technologies, without limits to how much capacity you can have.

Like

You seem to be winning hearts and minds in Australia. What is even more encouraging is that your blog is gaining adherents in the USA too.

I applaud your energy and commitment!

Like

Pod, wish I had an answer. I detect nothing other than SNAFU, or in it’s purest sense, “A GOAT FUCK”. Bligh is destined to send a “please explain” letter to Jooles concerning the electricity hikes.
Do I think anything sensible is going to happen?
No.
But as always, great work Barry. Say hello to Dr. Steve G. in the marketing school for me.
Can I humbly suggest that keeping faith in the ‘left’ of politics is NEVER going to get nukes to happen? We need to support the likes of Dr. Dennis Jensen.
And make Carlo Kopp boss of procurement.
Have a fun New Year. PS. It is 10C below average in Brisbane, still fucking raining, and a Fin girl I like a lot went home complaining of the cold. Where is my global warming? I paid for it, I want it….

Like

Addinall – you are getting what you “paid for”
The tropics are shifting southwards and that brings more rain to the north of Australia (and to the south on the tail end of cyclones as has happened this summer).
I say again – more heat (CO2 ) in the atmosphere means more energy in weather systems which equals more frequent and more intense weather events. Just as predicted. Get used to it!

Like

“One need look no further than The Weather Channel. The massive Northeast blizzard that shut down JFK and other airports this week and the record cold in South Florida could very well be the products of a warming Earth.

Climate change is defined as more-extreme weather patterns, winter and summer. This has been a year of extremes — record flooding in Pakistan, a drought in Russia, for example. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced recently that 2010 was the hottest year on record.

What more proof is needed to convince skeptics?”
Read more:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/29/1992058/the-epa-goes-after-carbon.html

Like

Scott

You have to understand that

1. Addinall likes to stir the possum.
2. Addinall likes anyone who shares his interest in military-style toys, esp. aircraft, guns etc
3. Carlo doesn’t like the joint strike fighter and neither does Addinall, and that ticks another important box
4. He also has an interest in IT — and so does Addinall.

I’m not sure why any of this especially qualifies Mr Kopp, but there you go.

Like

And Fran believes in:

– Greens Party policies no matter what the consequences of their implementation would be
– Unions are best to run the country
– ‘Left’ is best for everyone
– More tax because big government knows best
– Teachers union Marxist dogma
– Teaching our children Marxist dogma
– Catastrophe, Armageddon, apocalypse and scary movies
– everything the IPCC says
– everything web sites like RealClimate, ScepticalScience and the ABC says

Helpful to understand where a person is coming from isn’t it!? “But there you go!”

Like

I wonder if the Federal intransigence on nuclear will soften if most States either go Liberal or re-elect Labor govts that are not rabidly anti nuke. That would leave the ACT as the standout.

Newly Liberal Victoria is in the awkward position that nothing gets near the cheapness of $6/t brown coal. When and if most States go Liberal or nuclear-OK Labor they could knock down the door of the Federal Labor fortress. A few on the inside would help them in. I believe this could happen within 3 years.

Like

Fran Barlow, on 29 December 2010 at 4:24 PM said:
Scott
You have to understand that
“1. Addinall likes to stir the possum.”

Unsure what this means. Is it a sexual invite?

“2. Addinall likes anyone who shares his interest in military-style toys, esp. aircraft, guns etc”

Lessee, spending on guns in the last decade
$0.0
Spending on musical equipment
$20,000

Eeeek, I need more guns!

3. Carlo doesn’t like the joint strike fighter and neither does Addinall, and that ticks another important box
4. He also has an interest in IT — and so does Addinall.
I’m not sure why any of this especially qualifies Mr Kopp, but there you go.

That’s Dr. Kopp you dumbo. However, I am not surprised by your research skills.

(Dr. Ph.D) Mark Addinall.

Like

Ms Perps,
Oh f off, this is nonsense. Climate is CAUSED by CO2? How?

And this is the hottest year on record? Where?
Not here. Nor in Adelaide. Nor in Perth, nor
in Darwin, nor in the Isa. Just where is this warmth
hiding?

Like

Addinall I suggest you do more basic research instead of putting your energy into abusing others. A belief that global warming caused by GHG emissions is not occurring is based a ideological belief rather than scientific data and evidence. Refer http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/brochures/cop14.pdf. For more up to date climate trends also refer to http://climate.nasa.gov/.
For temperature trends check out Bureau of Meteorology.

For your information the SW of Australia where I live has just experienced its driest year on record and the hottest year on record. We are in a 40 year long drying and warming trend which was predicted by BOM 40 years ago and widely reported in the newspapers at that time.

Like

The Australian in just two days has neatly touched on many of the key points of our energy story:

– QLD zeros the Zerogen CCS pilot, which is far too expensive to be viable
– $1.5b of wind farm development in limbo due to collapse of the RET because all the RECs went to rooftop solar PV
– Anna Bligh calls for nuclear power to be debated at the ALP national conference
– An editorial supporting Bligh and emphasizing many of the themes developed at BNC
– Colin Burnett in WA calls for Australia to start planning its nuclear future and identifying reactor sites
– A cute retrospective on a solar power development that reads thus:

The Age, 2003:

Australia’s merciless sunshine is about to be harnessed to produce massive amounts of renewable energy. As part of the process, the tallest man-made structure built, a 1km tall tower, will rise from the red desert in the southwest of NSW. EnviroMission Limited, a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in August last year, plans to have it’s first $800 million solar-thermal electricity generator up and running in 2005 and four more operating by the end of 2010 [now!]. The company says that by the end of this decade they will be able to supply clean renewable energy to more than 1 million households, about one-eighth of the present total.

The Australian Financial Review, Sep 2010:

EnviroMission has shifted its focus to the United States, where the company says there are better incentives for solar power technology.

I predict these themes will become a major story this coming year and the discussion of the economics and practicalities of carbon abatement and energy security will enter the broader national discussion. The resources developed by Barry and others here will become important resources in that debate.

Merry Christmas Barry and all contributors here. God bless the good ship BNC and all who sail in her.

Like

I think that BNC is not the appropriate site for acrimonious bickering about climate change.
My impression is that most of the commenters here accept the science.Those few who are sceptical do realize the urgency of removing coal fired electricity generation from Australia.The present system is plainly not sustainable for various reasons.

We have a very large task ahead in convincing the leadership and the citizenry of the necessity for change.This is a double barrel task.I suspect that this is an issue where the leadership,public and private, is too timid or self interested to take the lead in what most of us know is the right direction.

The citizenry are going to have to lead and that is a big ask when the problem,to the average Joe & Jill,doesn’t appear to have much,if any,urgency.

I don’t know what is best way of tackling this problem and I would be interested in hearing the opinions of others.

Like

Addinall could well have an ulterior motive here. The global weather anomaly is likely causing a sudden rethink on the part of many who have been taken in by denialist propaganda. Lowering the tone of the comments may be an attempt to undermine the credibility of the blog.

Like

Speaking as someone who has engaged with Mr Addinall oin usenet for some years, and you knows his posting-style and drivers well, he is someone who likes flames. In fact, many of his responses to me over there were corssposted to a uesent group called “aus.flame”. The entire purpose of that group was to permit people so disposed to flame each other.

Addinall is not a fool, but his principal drivers are hatred of anything one could associate with the Greens, environmentalism and soft liberalism on the one hand, and what may be called “big stuff” and “big systems” on the other. Nuclear power ticks both those boxes. For the record though, he is in favour of burning/selling all of Australia’s hydrocarbons. Both policies fit the Addinall requirements — big [engineering] and annoying Greens and soft liberals/lefties. His style is the sweeping declarative statement, sometimes including copy and pasted uncommented text from some place he has dug up on the internet.

On more than one occasion he has addressed me over in usenet as “a stupid bint”. On one occasion he even accused me of trying to ruin his access to the internet and threatened vengeance. He is, let us be polite as Barry suggests, an eccentric.

Like

Podgarus,

My impression is that most of the commenters here accept the science. Those few who are sceptical do realize the urgency of removing coal fired electricity generation from Australia. The present system is plainly not sustainable for various reasons.

I wouldn’t want to be misunderstood. I want:

1. sustainable economic growth for all regions of the world at the fastest possible pace with minimum boom-bust amplitude

2. free trade

3. long term energy security

4. reliable, high quality energy supply

5. least cost energy

6. improving health, safety and environmental impacts of energy supply and use

Global warming consequences of fossil fuel use is just one of the impacts and it must be kept in proper perspective with all the others.

Like

And for the record Peter, with a caveat on #2, I’d broadly endorse the entire 6 things.

My caveat involves protection of benefits that iterations of “free trade” may miss. (e.g. no slave, indentured, small child labour, adequately safe working conditions, fair contracts, etc)

Like

Fran,

I agree with your caveat.

However, I how that can and should the developed countries impose their beliefs on the developing countries. If they want economic growth, who are we to say no, we know better and you shall do as we say?

We cannot expect developing economies to have the same standards as we’d expect in developed countries. So there must be a progressive transition in implementing the protections and benefits, perhaps roughly in line with the growing GDP of the growing economy. After all, our protections and benefits have improved as we developed and will continue to improve as we continue to develop. So the same will happen in the developing countries.

Like

Well yes, it would not be feasible to require that people in developing countries immediately attain benefits comparable to ours.

It would however be feasible to require compliance with minimum safe working practice laws, restraints on excessive working hours, child labour, requiring children to 15 years of age to be educated to an ac ceptable standard of literacy through properly designed courses and minimum numbers of school hours etc. We could require good environmental practice surrounding waste handling.

We could require that workers in developiong countries be given benefits at a rate at least comparable with the proportion of AFTWE for that category in a country such as Australia.

And we could impose tariffs on non-compliant traders (not whole countries) and hypothecate those tariffs (and some top up aid funds) to support the aims of those programs in regions that were falling behind, by providing quality education and voucher-based stipends for families.

Like

Fran,

If you require all that nothing will be done.

Regulation can do more harm than good. Forcing western beliefs on developing countries can slow growth and cause hardship to be maintained for much longer as a result than if the growth had been allowed.

A parallel can be drawn with what the activism which lead to excessive regulation has done to slow the development and implementation of nuclear energy over the past 40 years. The result is that nuclear energy is far more expensive than it would otherwise have been and implementation effectively stopped in the developing countries. This means GHG emissions are some 20% higher than they would have been and will continue to be some 20% higher for decades than they would have been had the do-gooders not managed to slow the development of nuclear. There are many other examples of where the do-gooders with their bright ideas have done so much harm. Regulations requiring bio-diesel, resulting in deforestation of equatorial forests, and banning DDT come to mind.

Like

If you require all that nothing will be done

If you don’t require something very much like that:

a) whatever is done will be more apparent than real
b) people will complain that the whole exercise was a waste of time or a fraud

Regulation can do more harm than good.

It can, but it need not, and no regulation means that you have five years olds crawling under spinning jennys for 14 hours per day, as at the industrial revolution. In Bangladesh, for example, not all births are even registered and children from poor families really are articles of sexual, industrial and domestic trade.

Regulations {…} banning DDT come to mind.

This is a furphy or at best misleading. The widespread use of DDT in agriculture was never regulated, but deprecated, mainly because this would prejudice the utility of DDT in control of malaria-bearing mosquitos. This old trope is trotted out against The Greens often by people who know it is a lie. I’m hoping you aren’t in that category.

By all means though, read up on the DDT trope here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/

Take your pick as there is a very useful discussion.

Like

And for the record, ecroachments by cattle ranchers and those wanting timber, and ool for pharmaceutiocal products and confectionery, have done far more than biofuels ever could to harm equatorial forests. This too is an old canard.

This is not, of course, an argument for resort to biofuels, each of which ought to be evaluated for its technical, environmental, financial, schedule and operational feasibility.

Like

Fran,

The point is that the do-gooders keep on insisting that their beliefs be imposed on societies (their own and others), but they do not have a good appreciation of all the factors involved. The Greens Party policy platform shows just how ignorant of economics and finances they are. They want more government funding for education, health, environment, public services etc., but they also want to block the very industries that create the revenue to pay for all that.

Financing is the key. If a company is thinking of investing in a developing country it evaluates the financial risks and the return on investment. The financiers do this too. The return on investment has to be sufficent to attract investors to take the greater risk involved in investing in developing countries. The more regulations you force on the business the less attractive the investment becomes until the point where it is simply not viable. I trust you can put this together. It is not just one business. It is many businesses. They have different break even points. The more restirctions we impose the less businesses will invest, and the less each one will invest. So the slower will be the country’s growth out of poverty.

I believe it is best to allow free trade, and allow these countries to grow at the fastest possible rate. This brings more trade, more income, more jobs, more funding for health and education. They are then in an improving position and better able to negotiate better contracts and apply the regulations that are best for them. This is better than do-gooders from the west telling them what is good for them.

Your prescriptive approach sounds a bit like that used by the religious missionaries of days gone by to justify their actions.

Like

The point is that the do-gooders keep on insisting that their beliefs be imposed on societies …(their own and others),

The do gooders are typically part of those societies, though we tend to hear more from those who speak our language since they tend to be easier to quote in our English-language press. In societies where there is nothing like democracy or a civil society, to speak of westerners imposing their mores on developing societies is just a cynical apologia for inequity, dressed in the finery of developing world empowerment. The local elites who run those places are not entitled to speak with impunity about what “their” people need as they often have a serious conflict of interest.

Moreover, human rights are universal. We cannot say that they are right here and frivolous in another jurisdiction.

Like

Fran,

The banning of DDT caused tens of missions of deaths. Anti-nuclear activism has caused excessive regulation, greatly increased costs, slowed roll-out, slowed development and cause GHG emissions to be about 20% higher than they would have been now and to remain some 20% higher for decades to come. These are the sorts of bad policies imposed on us by the doo-gooders. Pricing carbon in Australia, before we have removed the impediments to low-cost nuclear and before the largest emitting economies have reached a workable agreement on how to price carbon emissions, would be another really bad policy.

Many major scams have been highly successful in the European ETS. One is reported to have taken up to 2% of Denmark’s GDP (38 billion kroner, $7 billion). http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/taxing-lessons-of-a-flawed-ets/story-e6frg6zo-1225978200804

Like

Fran,

You are missing the point. Just as stopping development of nuclear has resulted in higher costs and higher emisisons now and for a long time to come, so too would imposing the endless list of restrictions you and your ilk would like to impose on companies trying to establish industries in developing countries. Restricting free trade is one of the worst things we could do.

Like

“Speaking as someone who has engaged with Mr Addinall”

Dr. Addinall. XXXXXX.

” oin usenet for some years,”

WHAT? Are you seriosly putting yourself up as a
USENET contributor?

XXXXXX, that defies imagination…

“and you knows his posting-style and drivers well, he is someone who likes flames. In fact, many of his responses to me over there were corssposted to a uesent group called “aus.flame”. The entire purpose of that group was to permit people so disposed to flame each other.”

aus.flame was created about the same time as aus.politics. On and off, populated by a few idiots, but a 20 year history will find the group populated by the brightest.

Tomasso, Clown, Friendless, DAC, Addinall, Wiley
et alia (notice et alia.) If you don’t like it, don’t post, and don’t read…

“Addinall is not a fool”

Well, that was the opinion of the people who gave me post-graduate bits of paper, and a few prizes…
http://www.addinall.net/prize.jpg

“, but his principal drivers are hatred of anything one could associate with the Greens, environmentalism and soft liberalism on the one hand,”

Not really. I just hate you. You are a XXXXXX idiot.

“and what may be called “big stuff” and “big systems” on the other. Nuclear power ticks both those boxes.”

Nuclear power is never going to make it whilst Barry plays to the lunatic left. Those of us with a real education AND some money, are going to run a mile from a XXXXX fool like you.

” For the record though, he is in favour of burning/selling all of Australia’s hydrocarbons. Both policies fit the Addinall requirements — big [engineering] and annoying Greens and soft liberals/lefties. His style is the sweeping declarative statement, sometimes including copy and pasted uncommented text from some place he has dug up on the internet.
On more than one occasion he has addressed me over in usenet as “a stupid bint”. ”

Sorry, that should have been “Stupid uneducated XXXXXX”.

“On one occasion he even accused me of trying to ruin his access to the internet”

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!

You XXXXXX jest!!!!
Never read my paper on Networks in the 90s’?
The fact that exactly 21,227 in Australia were connected to the ‘new’ internet? Just before I got back in country? And you have not noticed that own my own domains in a few countries!???

You stupid XXXXX bint.
For anyone interested, the Greens posted that the ‘Science is DONE’ and it is ‘statistically proven’ that AGW is a real fact.

I am yet to see that proof.
I asked for some, and the Greenies
banished me from their Facebook page!

“and threatened vengeance”

I don’t ever threaten. Can’t remember ever having
done so. Can I take this statement to court?

“. He is, let us be polite as Barry suggests, an eccentric.”

Did Barry say that about me! Well, shows some balls anyway. Next time I wander past the Masonic Hall I can cross the street and ask why he wants to publish this opinion.

Mark Addinall.

Like

Mark Addinall’s post was edited for ‘clarity’. He has a right to defend against criticisms, but not by incessant swearing. Keep that for the pub. Mark, you are now on moderation, as I can no longer let this stuff through without some vetting.

Like

After two more vituperous comments by Addinall, which were fortunately caught in the moderation queue (and deleted), he is now on permanent moderation. Some measure of civility is required in any debate, and in this case the line was comprehensively crossed.

Like

Addinall – your foul mouth won’t change the (to you) unpallatable fact that humans are causing this current warming. The answer to your inane question as to where it is warmer is – WORLDWIDE, OVERALL TEMPERATURE. If you choose not to accept the NASA figures and the overwhelming scientific evidence, that is your prerogative but, it doesn’t make your OPINION any more than that – your UNVALIDATED opinion.
Peter – I also agree with most the points you made, except, I am with Fran 100% regarding working conditions etc. Nothing excuses ill-treatment of children and the working poor who had few options – not even increasing the profit line. I urge you to read the social history of England during the Industrial Revolution and challenge you not to be touched by the dreadful plight of the working class or appalled by the grasping greed of the already wealthy employers.

Like

Addinall – you claim to be well-educated but are also patently unintelligent, anti-intellectual, foul mouthed, mysogynistic and a total waste of space. Oh, sorry – I forgot – that should be Dr. Addinall. Poser!

Like

Fran,

I’ve been thinking some more about the requirements you would impose on developing countries to allow them to participate in “free” trade. Would your require that they:

1. impose a carbon price?
2. don’t eat meat?
3. depopulate
4. don’t have sex
5. have anti-pornography bars on their internet connections

What other ideals would you require before you would allow “free” trade?

Like

Peter
Two requirements just about cover it- treat others as you would expect to be treated and a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. I think most people would agree with that.

Like

Ms Perps,

I don’t understand what you are referring to when you say “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work”.

However, I think, like Fran, you probably have little understanding of the consequences of the restrictions you would like to impose.

Consider what you think is a “fair days work for a fair days pay”, and consider how everyone else would want to impose their beliefs and think where this would lead. There would be no “free trade”. Everyone would be wanting to impose their values on others (within their own country and everywhere else). That is what the Greens want to do now through ever tightening regulations, restrictions and expansion of the “nanny state”.

Can’t you see where this would lead if it was allowed to get started at all. Everyone would want to impose on the developing country their own strongly held beliefs.

The only way is to have totally free trade. The development will come and all the other benefits will follow, including democracy, improved governance and all else you are wanting to impose as a condition of free trade. But if you impose your excessive requirements at the start, there will be no development, or at least, its pace will be slowed over what it could be.

Regarding “treat others as you would expect to be treated”, I agree. But it’s a real pitty that tose of your persuasion don’t police that amongst yourselves. That would be a really good start. Once that is demonstrated, I’ll believe it is actually going to happen. I think you, like most, love serving it up but don’t like the response.

Like

Peter Lang and Fran Barlow:

You both agree with each other about how you would like the future to unfold. Essentially, you would wish those in Third World and Developing Nations to attain living standards comparable with those in Developed Nations without significant detriment to the living standards of the latter. You differ only in the degree of laissez faire that should be allowed in your well-intentioned and benign, but idealised, future wish lists.

Your imagined future may just be possible in the absence of energy constraint, in the absence of any adverse impacts of using the vastly greater amounts of energy that will be needed in the future you hope for and on the assumption that global population will stabilise or fall in consequence of the hoped for increase in living standards.

Perhaps, a massive and rapid nuclear roll-out will achieve what you hope for. Little else currently seems to offer the remotest chance. If we don’t go with the approach that you both seem to want (nuclear) as fast as is needed to prevent energy constraint, what then? The universality of human rights will surely come to be seen as a noble, ideological and idealistic abstraction of the uniquely human mind which cannot hold up when the more primal directive of survival of the fittest begans to gain ground.

I am asking you both to imagine a future in which human survival, let alone quality of life, depends upon access to adequate resources. After all, this is what has always been the norm for populations of non domesticated species and, until the advent of modern agriculture and subsequently fossil fuels, was the case for man.

I would ask you the somewhat cliqued question of your responses to being marooned on a lifeboat with limited rations. I think Fran might be happy to follow a fair share policy that eventually led to the lingering deaths of all, because, as Peter says, she seems to be a genuine do-gooder (and none the worse for it). Peter, however, appears to pride himself as a realist/pragmatist. I can only suppose, therefore, that his promotion of free trade is based upon a lack of imagination that energy (and, in consequence, all other resources) will ever become so constrained as to threaten the survival of his own genes. It may, of course, be attributable to a failure to acknowledge that peak oil and the adverse consequences of AGW will be of major significance.

I am in no way attempting to make moral judgements. In fact, I am somewhat bewildered as to the optimum path forward. However, I remain sufficiently alarmed about future prospects to advocate a crash programme of nuclear roll-out (the war footing approach) as our best hope. I don’t think Peter’s free market advocacy will provide a timely solution. This is not a left/right issue. Rather, it is one that depends upon one’s judgement of the magnitude and acuteness of the problems we face.

Like

Douglas Wise,

Your post contains the usual patronising stuff I am so used to receiving from you. But from my perspective it is simply based on the usual arguments based on propogating fear of catastrophe, armageddon, appolcaypse etc that many scams and religions depend on.

I am asking you both to imagine a future in which human survival, let alone quality of life, depends upon access to adequate resources.

.

Oh yea! We’ve been through this a dozen time before. Yawn!

If we can’t focus on making substantive progress in the next year, five years and ten years what is the point in fretting over what will be the case many decades hence. The same silly arguments that you are using have been used for the past 40 years to block nuclear, promote renewable energy, block free trade, promote bio-fuels and the resulting deforestation, ban DDT and cause tens of millions of deaths, and promote Kyoto, ETS and carbon taxes. Note all these are policies pushed by the Left; all are symbolic gestures, none are economically rational and all have done enormous damage.

Douglas Wise, you must have missed this post, https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/31/alternative-to-cprs/#comment-109486 or else you didn’t get it or don’t want to.

Like

Douglas Wise,

You may have missed this one too:
https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/31/alternative-to-cprs/#comment-105862

It will provide some background to assist you. I find it really frustrating to have to keep posting and linking to the same material because you clearly haven’t understood it or appreciated how it comes together.

I notice that nearly everyone avoids seriously questioning whether or not a Carbon Price is the best way to reduce emisisons. It seems people have a belief, they want a symbolic gesture (another one) and that is all that matters – AGAIN!

Like

Douglas Wise

You differ only in the degree of laissez faire that should be allowed in your well-intentioned and benign, but idealised, future wish lists.

Rubbish. We differ in that Fran is promoting her Marxist dogma and I am trying to explain to those that want to listen what is pragmatic and proven by history to be achievable. If you don’t understand by now that free trade is good and protectionsim and excessive regulation and socialism (like UK and Europe) is bad, then there is little point in trying to discuss this – as we have found in many discussion on BNC over the past year or more.

Craig Emerson, Minister for Trade, argues that free trade should be implemented and it should be free of all other agendas. I agree.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-plots-free-trade-revolution/story-fn59niix-1225968580715

Craig Emerson’s recent speech:
http://www.trademinister.gov.au/speeches/2010/ce_sp_101210.html

The point, dear Fran, Ms Perps and Douglas Wise, is that we need free trade, with no connections to trying to impose our beliefs on other countries through trade. If you want to argue for this, why not simply invade the other country and impose your beliefs that way?

Like

As Terry Krieg suggested I have sent letters to Bligh, Barnett, Gillard and Abbott expressing my support for the use of nuclear power in Australia to reduce carbon emissions. Using data I obtained from this site, I also included objective evidence showing that renewables are a costly, unreliable source of electricity which do do not result in a reduction in GHG emissions. Note that while I have never received a reply from emails I usually get a considered response to letters and urge all from BNC to follow Terry’s lead..

Like

Douglas says:

I would ask you the somewhat cliched question of your responses to being marooned on a lifeboat with limited rations. I think Fran might be happy to follow a fair share policy that eventually led to the lingering deaths of all, because, as Peter says, she seems to be a genuine do-gooder {typo corrected: FB}

Granting the constraints, yes, though, if one entered the lifeboat with a calorie surfeit, what was fair sharing might vary! In extremis, what is fair is what people need.

Of course, Earth has a lot more possibility than a lifeboat. We can easily contrive resources that people in lifeboats can’t.

This is not a left/right issue. Rather, it is one that depends upon one’s judgement of the magnitude and acuteness of the problems we face

It shouldn’t be a left-right issue, but regrettably, the beggar-my-neighbour impulse if common on the right. It should be about what serves humanity as a whole, and that which underpins the wellbeing of those of us least well placed. For a variety of reasons (some of them obvious), the right tend to be less motivated by such concerns.

Like

Peter Langs said:

Craig Emerson, Minister for Trade, argues that free trade should be implemented and it should be free of all other agendas.

You’re agreeing with something he didn’t claim. Instead, he set down at least 5 “agenda” items and none of them excludes what I proposed.

Like

Peter said:

we need free trade, with no connections to trying to impose our beliefs on other countries through trade. If you want to argue for this, why not simply invade the other country and impose your beliefs that way

Again, petitio principii [I am not trying to impose [my/our] beliefs.on other countries. I’m trying to underpin rights recognised as universally applicable since WW2 and supported within thoise societies by those who are disempowered.

There’s nothing simple, (much less dispositive of net utility) about invading another country. The history of the last 2 decades attests to that.

Like

When backed into a corner, one straw grasped at by anti-nukes is the ‘nuclear power can’t cope with hot weather’ line spuriously based on the French experience in the heat waves of 2003 and 2009. But in today’s Adelaide Advertiser we read that wind energy has much more substantive technical issues:

“The reduction in wind generation during peak periods, or at the hottest times of the day, is partially attributed to limits placed on some turbines at high temperatures to prevent overheating,” an AEMO spokeswoman said.

“During the top 10 per cent of summer peak demand periods, approximately three per cent of total wind generation-installed capacity contributed to demand.”

The full article is here.

Like

It makes you wonder why we should pay a premium price for a disappointing product like summer wind power. That premium is RECs, FiT, soft loans, whatever.

Note that Florida’s manatees seek warmth in the cooling water of a thermal power plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12087311

I recall some have suggested air cooled mini NPPs for example at Olympic Dam. However air cooled coal plant like Kogan Ck and Milmerran Qld have a hot weather cooling option – they spray river water on the outside of the radiator. What happens when there is no river?

Like

Peter Lang:

You suggested that I had missed two of your links (cites) and that, had I read and assimilated them, I would no longer be so ignorant as to espouse the views that you so dislike.

It might surprise you to learn that I did read them and, furthermore, that I did not disagree either with their contents or conclusions.

The first (Gapminder) noted a correlation between various indices and wealth. You seem to interpret this as indicating that all other nations have to do to emulate the wealthy West is to democratise, liberalise trade and increase their use of electricity. My interpretation is different. I would suggest that the future will not necessarily resemble the recent past (when exponential growth was assumed to be and appeared to be limitless). I am wondering what will happen when and if such growth is constrained or ceases. I am asking you to contemplate this scenario as well, but your mind appears closed. What seems certain is that the survival of global capitalism is dependent upon continuing economic growth which, in turn, requires access to plentiful and affordable energy. It may be that capitalism will survive in some regions or nations with unconstrained “ecosystem services” or in nations that have the capability of obtaining such from weaker neighbours. I accept that Australia sits on plenty of resources, but am less convinced that these could be defended and kept out of the clutches of more militarily powerful neighbours who were not so blessed.

The second citation deals with the need for global energy availability to double in 4-5 decades and for its unit price to be less costly than at present. I totally support this point of view and consider it necessary if the global energy constraint discussed above is to be avoided. I think we both agree that that is dependent upon the scale and rate of deployment of nuclear fission power.

I think that you would probably admit that economic power is shifting to Asia where “state capitalism” appears to be bringing greater success than free market capitalism. It is probably for this reason that the nuclear renaissance is actually happening in Asia, but not yet in the West. I might be inclined to agree with you that the Left wing and do-gooding tendencies so prevalent in liberal democracies, though “civilising”, represent severe dampeners on economic competitiveness. I have not read of many mass anti-nuclear demonstrations in China, for example.

I am beginning to conclude that global leaders are mainly heading in the right direction, but, collectively and presently, at a rate that is not compatible with a benign outcome for other than a minority of the global population. I also think, possibly counter-intuitively, that citizens of liberal, developed democracies may not be among this minority unless their leaders take much more dramatic steps to secure their energy security (by developing nuclear power quickly and energetically as a priority). IMO, leaving matters to the free market won’t get us to where we need to be in time.

I admit that I am “thinking aloud” and my views are not fixed. I am sure that I could learn a lot from other contributors, but I do feel that there is no give and take when attempting to raise issues with you, Peter. All you do is to repeat, paraphrase or cite what you have already written or accuse me of selective quoting when I raise what seem to me to be inconsistencies in some of your posts.

Like

Fran :

You state that a “beggar my neighbour” impulse is common among those on the Right. I suppose that this may be how those on the Left choose to caricature things. I would suggest that beggaring one’s neighbour might be an interpretation of placing primacy on the interests of self and fellow tribal members. I could respond that you ought to know where good intentions (so prevalent among the Left) lead to, but you might respond that you don’t believe in hell! Anyway, it is very refreshing to be able to have a rational debate with someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. For this reason, I thought I’d raise a couple of somewhat tangential issues for your consideration:

1) There is a species of small mammal which lives in an environment subject to sudden changes every few years. Researchers were very surprised to learn that there were, within the population, two distict “personality” types (actually determined largely by brain and behavioural responses to adrenal hormones) which were co-dominant. In stable conditions, the non fearful “happy go lucky” confident individuals were preponderant. However, roles were reversed in periods of environmental change at which time timidity became a selective advantage.

2) I recently read in my newspaper that researchers had discovered anatomical characteristics in the human brain that allowed them to predict likely Left/Right voting patterns. Conservatives had larger amygdalas and differences in cingulate areas – structures related to fear responses.

I have noted in the UK that our Left leaning governments tend to expand the welfare state to the extent that economic disaster looms and the “nasty” party is then called in to attempt to fix things, not necessarily successfully. Thus, the ungrateful tail returns to wag the dog. I suspect that a liberal democracy with its attendant welfare state is a luxury that can only exist in times of plenty. I also believe that a state that allows its individual citizens to enrich themselves by exporting capital and technological know-how may be placing itself in a weakened position relative to one that does not.

If I were to suggest that your beliefs were those of the happy go lucky small mammal and mine were reflected by the behaviour of the timid co-dominant, i would conclude that my time in the ascendency could be about to happen. I draw no comfort or feelings of moral or intellectual superiority from this conclusion. It is merely one that I am driven towards as a biologist with some little understanding of human and animal brains and knowledge of how things work in the natural world where survival of the fittest rules and universality of rights is an unknown concept.

Like

Any qualified may want to intervene at Energy magazine with claims that Jacobson has received a “peer” review go ahead

From: Commenter Alan Burke

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/oil-sands-report-criticizes-all-stakeholders/article1838315/comments/

” Mark Z. Jacobson has provided me a link in email to a two-part article to be published in a few weeks in the journal “Energy Policy”. He and Mark A. Delucchi show how we can wean ourselves almost entirely off fossil fuels by 2030, using only sustainable water, wind and solar sources. This is an updated and revised version of their original report published in Nov. 2009 by Scientific American.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html

Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials

Click to access WWSEnergyPolicyPtI.pdf

Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part II: Reliability, System and Transmission Costs, and Policies

Click to access WWSEnergyPolicyPtII.pdf

Analysis spreadsheet
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWSEnergyPolicy-Spreadsheet.xls

Like

The Alberta Oil Sands are simply the worst thing that has happened to Canada. It has become the 800lbs gorilla in the energy debate in this country. The politics, of course, are as dirty as the product, and it is making it almost impossible to effectively push for the required legislation to bring the sector under control.

Like

Peter Lang,it seems counter intuitive to advocate less regulation when it is obvious that a lack of regulation and enforcement of existing regulations has been a major contributor to the ongoing global financial crisis.

As for free trade,privatization of public assets and globalization they are very visible manifestations of the growth at any cost mindset which is bound to hit a brick wall sooner rather than later.This is because of resource and environmental limitations exacerbated by exponential growth in population.

It is well past time that we realized that,on a finite planet,we can’t continue the present mad rush for more,more,more of everything.

Your conflict with Fran and Douglas illustrates the difference in mind set of the conservative versus the progressive.I hate using labels like this,partly because I don’t fit in any known label but,for purposes of clarity,we have put some things in little boxes sometimes.

If you know of Bill Mitchell,professor of economics at Newcastle University (NSW) you probably won’t agree with his ideas on Modern Monetary Theory, unemployment and other matters of import.

However,I would recommend a reading of his 29 December blog. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=12926

You may get some entertainment out of it if nothing else.

Like

Douglas Wise said:

I would suggest that beggaring one’s neighbour might be an interpretation of placing primacy on the interests of self and fellow tribal members. I could respond that you ought to know where good intentions (so prevalent among the Left) lead to, but you might respond that you don’t believe in hell!

You;re right. I don’t believe in hell. I also don’t believe we need to invent mythical places with which to scare ourselves whn humans have authored things as bad as can be imagined here in the observable world.

It is true that good intentions are not enough to ensure goud outcomes, though if they are the resulty of intellectually rigorous reflection with others, they are a good foundation for good policy. We also need good process, which will necessarily entail an active role in system design for intended beneficiaries and those whose legitimate interests may well be compromised by the new system.

I speak often of inclusive governance with this in mind.

I recently read in my newspaper that researchers had discovered anatomical characteristics in the human brain that allowed them to predict likely Left/Right voting patterns. Conservatives had larger amygdalas and differences in cingulate areas – structures related to fear responses

Let us simply observe, politely, that the methodology was seriously flawed. More generally, I am sceptical of neurophysiological explanators of culture. I won’t say that such matters are irrelevant, but I’d be very surprised if this could bear witness to more than generic banality. As your own text attests, left and right are used very loosely indeed.

I have noted in the UK that our Left leaning governments tend to expand the welfare state to the extent that economic disaster looms and the “nasty” party is then called in to attempt to fix things, not necessarily successfully.

I have been paying attention to UK governments since at least 1974, and to the best of my knowledge, there have been no left-leaning governments in the UK since that time, unless one means by that no more than a government that appears measurably more communitarian and liberal than some previous conservative government. Callaghan was certainly no left-leaning figure, nor Blair or Brown after him.

I don’t know enough of the governments of the immediate post-War period to say the same thing.

If I were to suggest that your beliefs were those of the happy go lucky small mammal and mine were reflected by the behaviour of the timid co-dominant,

You’d be taking biology further than it should. We are humans, and although we are certainly part of the animal kingdom, that “sapiens” in our species name counts for a very great deal. I was listening to interviews with Ingrid Betancourt and Aung Sun Suu Kyi before her and it struck me that we humans are not at prisoners of our biological urges.

I draw no comfort or feelings of moral or intellectual superiority from this conclusion. It is merely one that I am driven towards as a biologist with some little understanding of human and animal brains and knowledge of how things work in the natural world where survival of the fittest rules and universality of rights is an unknown concept

Well there’s your problem. It might have been fine for Spencer, and even less reputable figures following him (no names of course) but it’s a very lazy piece of anthropology at best.

Like

I stayed away from the Addinall hiatus as it involved more heat than light. Apparently most of you have a cow whenever anyone points out that CO2 is not a major driver of climate change.

The present so called “Warm Period” is actually part of an Ice Age. For more than 90% of the last 10,000 years temperatures have been higher than today. There is plenty of evidence if you will keep an open mind. Take a look at the following:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dorothy-behind-the-curtain-part-2/

By coincidence Don Easterbrook posted similar conclusions two days before my post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/

Like

gc in which of the last 10,000 years was the seven billionth live human born? That seven billionth human who begins life in 2011 will need food, shelter, a job and personal mobility. Those needs were easier to satisfy thousands of years ago.

Like

Podargus:

I essentially agree with your analysis. However, I was somewhat surprised that you dumped me along with Fran in the progressive camp! I’m not sure that Fran would welcome me as a bedfellow.

Like

GC,

Also, I thought that one of the more interesting statements of the past year by a scientist [ and one of the warming persuasion to boot] was “there has been no statistical warming since 1995”.

Like

Fran:

You suggest that I draw inappropriate lessons from studies of non human animals. You may well be right. I have spent considerable time thinking about the extent to which humans have been able to distance themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. Do we really and, uniquely in the animal kingdom, have free will? How much of our brain is hard wired in a manner similar to those of other animals? There are only small differences between higher non human primate brains and our own (the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex being the most obvious) but great apes are closer to rats than humans in their cognitive ability.

We have obviously gained huge evolutionary advantage through brain evolution. This is, arguably, an advantage based principally upon superior levels of cognition. The concurrent evolution of self consciousness and, with it, a social conscience has been considered by some to be an epiphenomenon – a property co-emerging with the evolutionarily advantageous superior cognition which, itself, has no evolutionary benefit and may have built in disadvantage for species survival in the long term. This is, if true, admittedly all rather depressing, but I think you shouldn’t, for this reason, just dismiss the hypothesis out of hand.

Your social conscience equips you with a strong concept of fairness. We all tend to raise our children to believe in a sense of fair play. Nevertheless, we all know that life is very often not fair at all. In times of plenty, there may well be advantage for social animals to play fair, but is it necessarily going to remain the optimum strategy when resources become limited? Is now the right time to be brainwashing our offspring to be fair? Are the Chinese being fair? They apparently have no wish to share their rare earth minerals with the rest of us. Do you blame them? Should you blame them? I don’t know the answers, but I suspect that you will say you do. You are driven by a strong moral compass which, though not dependent upon belief in a deity, is, nevertheless, quasi-religious. I am not criticising – I have my own moral compass but the needle doesn’t always point in a single direction.

Finally, you surprise me (and, no doubt, would astonish Peter Lang) by suggesting that the UK hasn’t had a left leaning government since 1974. I would define our Labour governments as giving primacy to wealth distribution without sufficient regard to its creation in the first place and Conservatives as having reciprocal policies. Neither party has been particularly successful. I suspect that this may be due to growing scarcity of natural (and particularly energy) resources combined with liberal policies that have enabled a few individuals and companies to enrich themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens by exporting capital and technology to nations with cheaper labour. As I am neither an economist nor a politician, I may be being massively naive and totally wrong. If others could point out my logical inconsistencies, I’d be happy – even relieved – to change my currently depressing views.

Like

Spangled trolled (badly):

GC,

Also, I thought that one of the more interesting statements of the past year by a scientist [ and one of the warming persuasion to boot] was “there has been no statistical warming since 1995″.

For pity’s sake … you can’t even get your troll talking points accurate. If you understand the first thing about statistical significance in climate change measurement, then you can only be recklessly making stuff up.

Like

Douglas Wise observed:

Your social conscience equips you with a strong concept of fairness. We all tend to raise our children to believe in a sense of fair play. Nevertheless, we all know that life is very often not fair at all. In times of plenty, there may well be advantage for social animals to play fair, but is it necessarily going to remain the optimum strategy when resources become limited? Is now the right time to be brainwashing our offspring to be fair? Are the Chinese being fair? They apparently have no wish to share their rare earth minerals with the rest of us …

You see? This is the beggar-my-neighbour impulse I so often see in those on the right.. It’s not just unworthy, it’s irrational. In the end, every human being benefits when we collaborate equitably.

Do you blame them? Should you blame them? I don’t know the answers, but I suspect that you will say you do.

I do. It is the objective of every human being to identify and realise his/her possibility, yet we cannot hope to get very far at all with this, save in concert with others involved in the same project. We can know ourselves by learning of others and their needs, and sharing, where we reasonably can, their purpose, while distinguishing our own.

It follows that it is not merely ethically indefencible to trample upon the legitimate claims of others, but subversive of our own longterm interest, because whatever temporary advantage we might have could never compensate for the damage we would have inflicted on our journey to insight. We would have to live with lies and dissonance.

Blame has nothing to do with the matter. We take others as we find them, dealing fairly in every case, according to the context in which we trade. We hate nor fear nobody, granting to each no more than that he or she is legitimately entitled and ensuring so far as we can, that nobody is denied what they need to do what we demand by right as human beings. We apply the Golden Rule using this to calculate how otyhers would have us treat them, when we are unsure.

As yto your governments since 1974, it seems to me that wealth in the UK throughout this time became less evenly distributed, and not merely during official Conservative rule either. Some of the actions of Labour regimes also facilitated this.

Enough said.

Like

Not only is this continued ideological sniping tiresome, and counterproductive, it makes all of you engaged in it look like narrow-minded, doctrinaire jackasses. Individuals who’s opinions are so tainted by personal biases, that they are not worth paying attention to at all – on any subject.

Just so you know.

Like

quokka,

This is a new work by Jacobson to be published in a reputable journal and needs be properly peer reviewed and retrashed.

Once again.

Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials

Click to access WWSEnergyPolicyPtI.pdf

Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part II: Reliability, System and Transmission Costs, and Policies

Click to access WWSEnergyPolicyPtII.pdf

Analysis spreadsheet
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWSEnergyPolicy-Spreadsheet.xls

Like

Fran:

You concluded your last reply to me with the words “enough said”. I agree – we are drifting into areas that are, essentially, off topic.

However, I have found the discussion interesting and our different perceptions have been crystallised.

Your categorical statement, made with no qualification, that “in the end, every human being benefits when we collaborate equitably” just about sums it up. I envy your faith and hope that it is borne out by your future experience.

Like

“BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just.”

OK Fran, he didn’t say it, he just agreed but don’t be in denial.

Like

dv and luke and anyone else:

could you sort out fact from fiction in following article about navajo and uranium?

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-navajo19nov19,0,5351917.story?page=1

on page 8 of the story, radioemissions in a particularly dangerous (according to the article) structure is 1000 microroentgens per hour, which the article claims is 75-100 times EPA regs.

Now, according to what I read, 1000 microroentgens/hr is the equivalent of 400 microrems/hr

(http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/FIPR/FIPR1.nsf/9bb2fe8f45c4945e85256b58005abaec/07e899545b45471b85256e9700532851/$FILE/05-063-205Final.pdf
).

If you multiply this by 8760, you get 3500 millirem. cut this number in half since people don’t spend all day in houses.

but 1700 millirem gives you about the average of portions of washington state and there is no evidence of excess cancer there.

anyway, since the article doesn’t sort out causes (chemical from radiological etc), but blames all the cancers on uranium, it’s a frustrating article to read.

it seems to me imperative to respond to this sort of article because it will be convincing to many people:

it sounds scientific and it battens upon a record of racism against the navajo, so well meaning folks will be well disposed towards the article.

and the role that these articles play in demonizing np is obvious.

btw, the cancer rate of the navajo is lower than national average, but the claim is that whatever cancer there is among the navajo in these mining regions is due to the mines.

what do you all think?

Like

DV*

With the arguable exception of Spangled, where I took a swing at him misrepresenting Phil Jones in a new iteration of a very cliched piece of denier verballing, I haven’t sniped here at anyone.

Douglas sems to me a worthy and intelligent fellow, despite our politico-cultural differences, and I’ve enjoyed the exchange at least as much as he says he has.

Perhaps you are referring mainly to Peter’s persistent à propos de rien style outbursts?

Like

Fran – I named no names, but if the shoe fits….

greg meyerson – Newspapers, like the Los Angeles Times, are not known for the quality of their epidemiological research under the best conditions, so I would caution anyone from giving such sources too much weight.

As for the health of people in these communities, it has suffered since the middle of last century from a number of agents, including access to the accouterments, and diet of post war America, and acquiring the habits that are responsible for similar health issues in the general population, on several fronts. Unless this effect is controlled for, any concussions over the contribution of radiation is speculative at best.

While

Like

I support most of what’s said on this blog and wish it well but gallopingcamel made a point about the “statistical significance” of the warming [?] that has occurred during the total period of civilization of this planet.
My comment was relevant to that from a short term perspective and as a summary of the past year’s events.
Phil Jones’ statement is very significant and he certainly understands what he said and it is to his credit that he said it.

Like

Tomas Frank
The Wrecking Crew: how conservatives ruined government, enriched themselves, and beggared the nation
Holt Paerbacks/Henry Holt LLC, 2009.

Not acctually conservatives, but the wrecking crew has also been wrecking the mother tongue.

Like

Leave a Reply (Markdown is enabled)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s