Climate change: 5 myths

For today, let’s assume anthropogenic climate change (man-made global warming) is a serious environmental problem requiring effective action.

Here are five myths that undermine realistic and rational responses to it, globally and in Canada.

Share
  • Climate change is not the problem.

    But, pollution from fossil fuels is a big problem.

    The only “real and long-term” solution is some sort of non-polluting energy source.

    Wind and solar are clean energy sources when producing.

    We only need a storage solution for when they are not producing.

    Here is my solution.

    Tax carbon based energy. (This will raise its price. Everyone will use less – simple supply and demand. And vary little government needed.)

    Take carbon based energy taxes and use them for massive R&D into improving efficiency of non-carbon based energy sources and improved forms of energy storage.

    The longest journey starts with a single step. Lets get going, before we kill ourselves with petrocarbon pollution.

    • FactsWillOut

      Here’s a better idea: Fuck off and let the free market decide what energy people want to use. If fossil fuels become too expensive, other forms of energy will become viable.

      • dance…dancetotheradio

        I wonder how much knowledge of physics, chemistry and electrical engineering Mr. Bob has.

        • just a thought

          first – “fossil” fuels may not be “fossil” after all
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuels-without-the-fossils/
          I.e., the ultimate “renewable.”

          second – With improvements in technology, even coal fired plants are sufficiently clean, with very high sulfur and mercury removal. Of course, he could be referring to CO2, as most greenies do, but if so he would be dead wrong.
          http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a511933417970c-pi

          • FactsWillOut

            Long chain hydrocarbons don’t spontaneously form. Also, ALL oil is full of bio-markers. Coal is obviously from wood, thus the knots in it.
            That theory has a long way to go.

            If it were true, then, eventually, we would need to stop using fossil fuels, before we hit 7%+ CO2, at which point it starts having toxic effects.

          • just a thought

            Yep, no other way for bio-markers to get into oil.
            http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/fossil/mammal/6mammoth-tar-pits1957.jpg
            And Saturn’s moon was once inhabited by animals, now turned to oil.
            http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html
            Facts will indeed out, if one will only pay attention to them.

          • FactsWillOut

            Look into Occam.

          • just a thought

            I cut my eye teeth on him. 🙂

          • FactsWillOut

            You don’t have a scientific bone in your body.

          • just a thought

            LOLOLOLOL

            Reduced to calling names, are we?

            MIT – Technology Review
            http://www.technologyreview.com/news/425509/peak-oil-debunked/

          • FactsWillOut

            I never brought up peak oil, you did. Nice straw-man attempt.

            “And Saturn’s moon was once inhabited by animals, now turned to oil.”<-you.

            LOL.

          • just a thought

            Straw man? It was an illustration of hydrocarbons without biological markers. And it’s impossible to show you any material about abiotic oil without some comment about peak oil. Maybe you should go back and chek my grammmer and alzo see if I misspelled ani wurds, then u could REELY show howe rong I is.

          • FactsWillOut

            I see, the college graduate thinks all hydrocarbons are the same, be they 20 carbon chains or methane.

          • just a thought

            THAT’s a “straw man.”

            Buh Bye, now.

          • FactsWillOut

            LOL.
            No, it isn’t.
            You brought up Titan, with a max 2 carbon chain, and some dubious space thing without accurate Hydrogen numbers on the molecules, and possible “silicon capped” to boot, which just obfuscates any reasonable spectographic analysis.

            You actually brought up “animals on Titan” along with max 2 carbon chains, and then you have the audacity to bring that up as an argument about bio-markers, which are huge organic molecules.

          • FactsWillOut

            Also, you are an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between methane and octane.

          • just a thought

            An idiot is one who rejects valid evidence just bcause contradicts his own biases.
            http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html
            http://www.petroleum.co.uk/abiotic-oil-formation

          • FactsWillOut

            Again, you brought up Titan, which is “full of hydrocarbons”.
            There are no long chain hydrocarbons on Titan, fool.

            You have no clue whereof you speak. You simply spout off stuff that you read in a paper.

            If you cannot see the difference between abiotic production of methane and ethane and abiotic production of octane and nonane, there is very little hope for you.

            Look into the energy of chemical bonds, enthalpy, entropy, etc.

          • just a thought

            Look into the energy of chemical bonds, enthalpy, entropy, etc.

            I aced pchem and thermo in college.

          • FactsWillOut

            Well, that was predictable.

            Then you would have known the difference between long chain hydrocarbons and short-chain hydrocarbons.
            I guess you graduated with a degree in Gender Studies, or at best, communications?

          • just a thought

            I repeat myself. You had better write to these guys and explain to them why they should believe you, and not their own data.
            http://www.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/mysterious-molecules-space

          • FactsWillOut

            “Not a single one has been definitively assigned to a specific molecule,” said Neil Reilly, a former postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a co-author of the new paper.”

            ” these mysterious molecules may be silicon-capped hydrocarbons like SiC3H, SiC4H and SiC5H,…”

            LOL.
            Seems the number of hydrogen atoms in the compound isn’t important to spectrographic anylisis. (BTW, it is very important, if you know anything about chemistry”)

            Idiot.

          • just a thought

            no long chain hydrocarbons in space?
            http://www.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/mysterious-molecules-space
            You better write to them quickly, before they embarrass themselves any further.

          • FactsWillOut

            Bwahahaha!

            “Not a single one has been definitively assigned to a specific molecule,” said Neil Reilly, a former postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a co-author of the new paper.”

            ” these mysterious molecules may be silicon-capped hydrocarbons like SiC3H, SiC4H and SiC5H,…”

            LOL.
            Seems the number of hydrogen atoms in the compound isn’t important to spectrographic anylisis.

            Idiot.

          • dance…dancetotheradio

            Read that.
            Naturally skeptical.
            The science isn’t settled though, is it?

          • tom_billesley

            We could have science based policy instead of policy based science. However, that’d be a step too far for our politicians.

          • tom_billesley

            Sulfur removed from flue gas in UK coal fired power stations used to end up in drywall which saved on the mining of gypsum. I guess that’s all changed now.

          • just a thought

            I read some years ago that the price of Sulfur actually dropped as a result of it’s effective removal from flue gas. Also, the last paragraph here mentions gypsum, as you wrote.
            http://www.powermag.com/converting-sulfur-from-flue-gas-into-fertilizer/

        • FactsWillOut

          “I’m scared of something, so I think the state should take more of folks stuff”
          Useful idiot in a nutshell.

          • dance…dancetotheradio

            It drives me nuts that a guy like Elon Musk who made some legitimate money as one of the progenitors of PayPal can then convince gullible people to subsidize his misguided efforts to create an electric vehicle.

          • terrence

            Well, he gets about 4 to 5 BILLION dollars with the US government to this silly “research”

          • dance…dancetotheradio

            It’s the people who buy into this that worry me.
            They are called politicians.
            Years ago I was sitting in someone’s basement at a party listening to the girls talk about recycling.
            I said it costs more to recycle than it does to make new.
            (With the exception of aluminum.)
            They wouldn’t listen.
            They just wanted to feel good.

          • just a thought

            “I believe people should be nice, and if it doesn’t do what I want, then I’ll throw a tantrum and break stuff.”
            http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/10/article-1328385-0C00CDED000005DC-645_634x455.jpg
            If it weren’t for an effective state, the above would be far more common. The fact that it exists at all is because we don’t have an effective state. But replacing defective breaks on a car with an additional accelerator won’t fix the car.

          • FactsWillOut

            So you have been lead to believe.
            It seems you would rape, loot and kill if it were not for an “effective state”.
            So, how about you just fuck off and go back to your love of Mussolini.

        • I’ll bet more than you.

          And better than that, I don’t believe in holding on to an obviously sinking ship.

      • I’ll buy the free market idea. And I don’t like government control.
        But, like it or not, carbon energy sources will run out.

        And, I agree, free market sources will provide a solution.

        But until that happens the use carbon energy sources world wide will continue to have significant negative long term effects on the environment. (How well do you like your Chinese coal plant mercury polluted fish cooked?)

        Even if we, here in the US and Canada, find “clean” solutions, the rest of the world will continue to use outdated sources because of costs. And we will continue to deal with their pollution.

        We need to lead the transition to real clean energy. If we don’t who will?

        At the same time, this transition hopefully, will make the value of carbon fuels in the ground valueless. How much better off the world would be without shipping trillions of dollars to Muslim fanatics.

        Way to few are willing to look at the bigger picture. Burning carbon based fuels, for another couple hundred years sounds like a fools gamble to me.

        And telling me to “fuck off” is not a sign of reasonable debate.

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      I know, let’s tax the very thing that makes it possible for Canadians to survive long winters.
      Let’s lose our comparative competitive advantage that we might have over other countries.
      Let’s live in fucking log cabins and burn logs and shit to eke out our existence.
      Aye, let’s listen to well meaning deluded fuck faces like you and walk down your pied piper path to sickness and disease and death.
      You do know that the modern era of physics was started by Newton over three hundred years ago.
      You’d think they’d have figured out a few things by now.

      • Gary

        We can also shut down all the Hospitals and schools to save the planet .

    • The South Koreans were experimenting with some kind of battery storage capacity. I can understand why they would put resources into this seeing as they have no fuel resources of their own. Even if they were successful in that regard, such things would only be good locally and for a short duration.

      Until someone invents dilithium crystals, it’s fossil fuels or nothing.

    • Alain

      I do agree that pollution is a big problem, but I disagree that it is due to fossil fuels. I refer to the pollutions due to excessive waste beginning with the ridiculous packaging of everything which ends up in garbage. The second source is that nothing is made to last any more making it either impossible or too expensive to repair. The goal being to force people to buy a new replacement with the old one going to garbage. Most pollution is caused by our wasteful and disposable culture rather than the use of fossil fuels with modern technology.

  • FactsWillOut

    There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (MMGW) aka AGW and real science. Real science, for example:

    1. says “Question everything”. MMGW advocates say “Questioning MMGW is unacceptable because it threatens the planet.”

    2. never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. MMGW tries to break that cycle by claiming “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. “Settled science” is an oxymoron invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.

    http://www.pqatesting.com/uploads/diagram.jpg

    3. develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. MMGW isn’t falsifiable because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore’s movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to MMGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of MMGW. There is no observation that MMGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/

    4. relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. MMGW, on the other hand, intimidates and smears skeptics as “non-believers”, equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:

    http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/15/eminent-swedish-scientist-latest-victim-of-climate-mccarthyism/

    5. grants awards for disproving accepted truths. MMGW researchers, on the other hand, have a vested interest in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/the-well-funded-climate-business-follow-the-money/

    6. has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but MMGW proponents constantly use them to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

    7. doesn’t claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Physicist

    8. keeps testing to eliminate remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein’s Relativity is still being tested a century later. MMGW ignores or hides data it doesn’t like:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

    9. accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When MMGW predictions are wrong they don’t question the hypothesis…they just change the predictions and rebrand the movement.

    10. never recommends that skeptics be jailed:

    http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

    11. doesn’t create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.

    12. works hard to understand and account for all interfering variables in studies. MMGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth’s climate for billions of years, unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.

  • Considering the unreliability of wind and solar power and the logistics of setting up these enormous land-hogging devices, one questions why governments would even consider these as remotely viable. Then one remember the favours and so forth and it makes sense.

    “Climate change” and its other incarnations are scams stemming from even older scams (scarcity of resources, over-population, ect). They are efforts to keep the powerful in power and reduce everyone else to a state of fear and dependency.