"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[Ben Dhyan]

As I noted earlier, we're already seeing the effects of warming and they're definitely negative. And many of the effects I listed are not local to where I live.


So you believe we should hold off on switching to cleaner energy sources until we conduct and agree on all that? Isn't switching to cleaner energy a laudable goal regardless?


Yes they are edited. That's what the ellipses ("...") signify.


And if it doesn't?

The fact is that renewable energy can not replace base load electrical power generation any time soon, only nuclear can do that, and the left political lobby won't allow it. Besides which, any transition from the present mix must not cause electricity costs to increase as that would doom the masses of people in the third world to permanent poverty....not on as far as I am concerned.

If you have any doubts about the editing, here is a resource where all the Climategate emails can be found and you can check them out...http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

For example...here is the Phill Jones' email of 5 July, 2005.

email 1120593115 Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has,but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

Well we will have to wait and see, for as you can see from the political debate going on in the US wrt climate change, no one is going to agree to spend trillions of dollars unless it is a certain fix for a certain problem, neither of which is there anywhere near consensus.

 

[Jose Fly]

The fact is that renewable energy can not replace base load electrical power generation any time soon

I didn't say anything about completely replacing fossil fuels.

But I'm getting the impression that you're generally against cleaner sources of energy anyways, and would prefer that we not only continue our current rates of using dirtier energy, but expand them as well. Is that about right?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't say anything about completely replacing fossil fuels.

But I'm getting the impression that you're generally against cleaner sources of energy anyways, and would prefer that we not only continue our current rates of using dirtier energy, but expand them as well. Is that about right?

Only in the sense of maintaining the present reliability of electrical power and prices thereof. Renewable energy like wind and solar, can't provide electrical base load for reasons of not always being available, and combined with batteries which would solve that problem are yet so expensive that the poor would suffer with higher rates. There is a niche for them, but not at consumer's expense or taxpaying subsidies. When and if the battery and cost issues are resolved, it may very well be successful. But I think nuclear is the way forward when the safety, waste disposal and/or recyclable spent fuel, and cost issues are solved, but again, not at taxpayers expense. Nuclear covers base load requirements and, like wind and solar, are free from atmospheric emissions,

 

[leibowde84]

Heavy subsidies for fashionable (but not cost effective) green energy things like
Tesla cars come from taxpayers, who saw a big tax increase under Obama.

I would argue that even without climate change, we need to increase our renewables infrastructure. It's going to be a long time before renewables are a viable alternative energy source, but it's important to at least put in some effort. Whether or not man made climate change is real, pollution is something that must be avoided.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would argue that even without climate change, we need to increase our renewables infrastructure. It's going to be a long time before renewables are a viable alternative energy source, but it's important to at least put in some effort. Whether or not man made climate change is real, pollution is something that must be avoided.

Aye....I'll add that, energy efficiency & independence is of strategic military value.
We can better use our resources that way too fast toys for rich boys.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The march failed to achieve its purpose, republicans and older people are apparently less prone to activist's propaganda... Americans Divided on Whether Recent Science Protests Will Benefit Scientists’ Causes

" a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most Democrats and younger adults are convinced that these public events will help the causes of scientists. By contrast, Republicans and older adults believe the marches will not raise public support for scientists, aid efforts to increase government funding of science, enhance the role of scientists in policy debates or lead to increased efforts to combat global climate change.

Overall, 44% of adults think the protests, marches and demonstrations will boost public support for science, while an equal share believe the protests will make no difference and 7% believe the demonstrations will actually hurt the cause."

 

[leibowde84]

The march failed to achieve its purpose, republicans and older people are apparently less prone to activist's propaganda... Americans Divided on Whether Recent Science Protests Will Benefit Scientists’ Causes

" a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most Democrats and younger adults are convinced that these public events will help the causes of scientists. By contrast, Republicans and older adults believe the marches will not raise public support for scientists, aid efforts to increase government funding of science, enhance the role of scientists in policy debates or lead to increased efforts to combat global climate change.

Overall, 44% of adults think the protests, marches and demonstrations will boost public support for science, while an equal share believe the protests will make no difference and 7% believe the demonstrations will actually hurt the cause."

Why do you think the organizers based their success on convincing Republicans and old people?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you think the organizers based their success on convincing Republicans and old people?

Perhaps it is like all successful circuses, the kids loves em, but the more mature have deeper and more serious life's concerns.

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps it is like all successful circuses, the kids loves em, but the more mature have deeper and more serious life's concerns.

Nah ... it's just because old people tend to be set in their ways and less open to new information.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nah ... it's just because old people tend to be set in their ways and less open to new information.

In some ways that is true, in others ways older people realize that wrt principles, there is.."nothing new under the sun".

 

[leibowde84]

In some ways that is true, in others ways older people realize that wrt principles, there is.."nothing new under the sun".

Assuming that "there is nothing new under the sun" means that our current understanding of anything is complete or exhaustive, that is the most dangerous and illogical mindset I've ever heard.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Assuming that "there is nothing new under the sun" means that our current understanding of anything is complete or exhaustive, that is the most dangerous and illogical mindset I've ever heard.

You did not understand that it was the 'principles' that remain the same, not the data and information.. And that is an example of 'nothing new under the sun'....some people do not understand the language they speak, now as then, and it will always be thus, true understanding is not just understanding understanding, but also understanding not understanding. People are not all at the same level of evolutionary development.