Warning..... Very Strong Language

Warning..... Very Strong Language

This is for my buddy Brian.

I fell off my chair laughing but, be warned, the language is foul!!!!

justineet | July 31, 2013

@tobi_ger....he's making it sound like Germany has been moving away from nuclear energy because of pressure from global warming interest groups which is completely untrue. Countries like Germany have been moving away from Nuclear because of perceived or real safety doesn't have anything to do with global warming as he is implying.

tobi_ger | July 31, 2013

Me can do linkz, too:
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Brian H | July 31, 2013

That link is outdated and bogus. The southern hemisphere temperatures were much higher than displayed there. Studies from South America to South Africa to NZ to Japan and China show that clearly.

In general, SkepticalScience is a very poor site with terrible editorial and data manipulation policies and track record. Its owner is an ex-cartoonist, and it shows.
Author(s) John Cook
Current status / schedule Ended (mostly)
Launch date July 10, 1995
End date February 17, 2010

Science fiction cartoon site. Formally closed in 2013.

tobi_ger | July 31, 2013

Yeah, they are all bogus in your eyes unless Monckton runs it.

Regional higher temperatures with short spikes whilst other regions being colder do not make the global temperature higher than today.
The temps of the past have been shown by seperate studies and your friends twist the data till their heads spin. Enjoy while it lasts.

xoviat | July 31, 2013

I would just like to highlight the utter hypocrisy of those who accept AGW, yet are against nuclear power. Without paying for massive energy storage systems that are probably uneconomical to build and to maintain, nuclear power is the only plausible solution to virtually eliminate all power plants that generate pollutants. Renewable power is helpful, but too unreliable to provide the only power for the grid.

Even accounting for the tragic accidents that occurred at nuclear power plants in japan and in the USSR, nuclear power causes less deaths per unit of power than any other source with similar characteristics.

There are some individuals who propose the end of modern civilization , the end of the modern economy, and a return to living "off the grid" as a solution to AGW. These individuals, like deniers, are usually not familiar with the scientific consensus, use AGW to promote their particular political agenda, and discredit those who accept the science and who want to rationally solve the problem with the least change to our current economy and standard of living as possible.

To close, those who oppose nuclear power and other reasonable solutions for political reasons are, in my view, nearly as bad as those who deny AGW for political reasons.

PS You will not convince Brian H that he is incorrect. Many have tried and failed. It will not happen, because this is the same debate with the same points made as those in a previous thread. Attempting the same thing twice and expecting different results is...

lolachampcar | July 31, 2013

xoviat... Agree on Nuc.

' Started the thread because even the most basic of common sense should tell BH he is off base and yet it does not. That affected my consideration of his past and current posts. Feeling slightly betrayed by my judgement I decided to dangle a bit of bait out there for him.

Tesla-David | July 31, 2013

@xoviat. I am an AGW believer who is strongly against nuclear power in it's present configuration,and feel that Germany is doing the right thing by shuting down their nuclear plants. I believe that other clean energy options are available and just coming on line to handle energy needs without resorting to nuclear, which is expensive, dangerous (Fukushima, is currently leaking vast amounts of uncontrolled nuclear waste into the Sea of Japan), and have not resolved the nuclear waste issue after 50 years. I believe in doing a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, whatever clean works for a given geographical area utilizing a Smart Grid. The following is an example of ongoing solar innovation, which will may solve the issue that when the sun goes down, solar stops producing ( I remain unconvinced that nuclear energy is a real vialble alternatative to effectively deal with AGW given the long lead time to construct a plant, the safety and waste issues not withstanding. We are on a short time fuse to effectively deal with AGW, and Dr. James Hansen believes we have less than five years to come up with effective solutions that quickly move us off carbon based energy to clean renewable energy. I have solar panels, and am a net producer of energy at my home. I think if the poltical will existed to effectively push for better solutions, we could solve the AGW energy problem, but it is undoubably a tough sell in the current AGW denying poltical atmosphere that exists now. However, raising the price of dirty energy through a carbon tax is something that could quickly make clean energy alternatives more cost competitive and viable for mainstream use by raising the cost of dirty carbon energy at the source (mine, well head, etc.). All revenues generated (revenue neutral) should be returned directly to the people to offset the increased costs of energy as we transition to clean renewable energy. I don't think I am a hypocrite for my distaste for nuclear energy. My wife is Japanese, and the horror from the ongoing disaster at Fukushima and from previous disasters at Cheronobyl makes me oppose this form of energy.

Tesla-David | July 31, 2013

I meant Republican AGW denying political atmosphere.

xoviat | July 31, 2013

I believe that other clean energy options are available

For those areas where hydroelectric or geothermal is not an option (much of the world), nuclear power is the only option that provides a continuous supply of electricity. Solar and wind are good options but require expensive energy storage if they are to be the only source.

and just coming on line to handle energy needs without resorting to nuclear

As you can clearly see, germany is powered almost completely by coal during the nighttime. This problem will simply not disappear on its own.

which is expensive, dangerous

This is just a simple matter of numerical comparison. "Advanced Nuclear" is only slightly more expensive than "Advanced Coal" (all new coal plants) and significantly less expensive than "Advanced coal with CCS." One study found that nuclear is on-par with the safety of renewable sources, while others have reached similar conclusions. While these studies are not scientific, there is nothing to suggest that they are not approximately accurate.

(Fukushima, is currently leaking vast amounts of uncontrolled nuclear waste into the Sea of Japan)
As any scientist worth his salt knows, anecdotes are simply bad science.

and have not resolved the nuclear waste issue after 50 years

Here is the nuclear industry's own response to that question. However, the real proof comes from the fact that, in the united states, nuclear waste has been stored without any particular incident.

We are on a short time fuse to effectively deal with AGW
If you believe this, than the rational position would be to push for a rapid transition to nuclear power in the united states. This is the only method to quickly move the united states off of fossil fuels in a relatively short time with relatively minimal political opposition from powerful interest groups.

All of the other options will take a much longer time to implement or will greatly reduce economic activity and face massive political opposition.

Brian H | July 31, 2013

Global warming has been going on since at least 1850. Fortunately. There is no evidence of detectable human effect at any point since then. The supposed anthropogenic increase from about '79-'98 is the ONLY period that "matches" the prediction, and almost all of that occurred in the '98-9 Super El Nino. The core of the theory is the model projections, which aren't even within 2 SD of reality, and show "no skill" at any time period or retro-cast not retroactively set.

Bull-feces. "... the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud" in recorded history.

tobi_ger | July 31, 2013

I'm sorry, but saying that there haven't been enough deaths yet related to nuclear energy makes it safer long-term is ridiculous.
It completely neglects the extraodinary risks it poses.
Although we haven't had a catastrophe in Germany like in Japan, there have been plenty of "malfunctions" in the nuclear plants in the last decades related to failing cooling systems and such. Fortunately nothing serious happened, yet.
The safety of their plant domes is not trusted in the public. Cooling storage facilities for nuclear waste are not especially protected against impacts, but must be operated for years to come for ongoing cooling.
If an air or water spill would occur in any of the european plants (France has the most), which are located at rivers, it would cause severe physical and economic damage in usually densly populated areas.
The nuclear plants do not even have insurance for such cases, basically the tax payers pay for accidents, too.
In short: low probability doesn't make extraodinary damages any better.
With so many people banking on nuclear energy, I wonder why Thorium reactors aren't pushed more or are not even online yet. I thought India was interested in those.

As to alternatives, here is an example of 2172 MW water pump storage facility within the US:
Ludington Pumped Storage Plant Celebrates 40th Anniversary in 2013
The technology is already there, we just need the will to implement more of such solutions.

justineet | July 31, 2013

@Brian's ridiculous to compare current human beings' impact on global warming to the 18OOs or anytime from distant past. Unlike past civilizations, current civilization has accumulated unprecedented technology which can contribute for great good or tremendous harm if not used wisely. U r spitting out lots of words and claims but they do not have much logic behind them.

bb0tin | August 1, 2013

You said "Without paying for massive energy storage systems that are probably uneconomical to build and to maintain, nuclear power is the only plausible solution to virtually eliminate all power plants that generate pollutants. Renewable power is helpful, but too unreliable to provide the only power for the grid."

Earlier in this topic I posted a link showing how most of our energy can be reliably produced with renewables:

Taking Germany as an example, new nuclear is now more expensive than solar:

Nuclear takes years to build a plant, but solar can be built incrementally. The world is now producing over 50GW peak PV panels per year and the outlook is far higher

Here you can see just how much wind contributes to some countries power already:

There is also large potential in geothermal, tidal, wave and biogas. I can provide links if you cannot find them.

In summary, we have the proven technology and economic costs to justify moving to renewables rapidly. We do not need to rely on nuclear for new generation.

Brian H | August 1, 2013

The more technology is developed and applied, the lower the impact on the environment. Primitive energy sources and so on are very intrusive and destructive (biofuels are a reversion, so are windmills, even solar).

If you want to see environmental devastation, keep much of the planet poor and desperate.

tobi_ger | August 1, 2013

@Brian H

Do you have ANY solutions to offer?

justineet | August 1, 2013

Brian H...I say let's keep the planet prosperous in an environmentally sustainable way. Whether you keep the planet poor or rich, the end result is going to be ugly for most if not all if it's environmentally unsustainable.

JAFIC | August 1, 2013

Actually, this planet is no longer sustainable.

I dunno about climate change but what I do know, ocean levels seems to have rise. I quote a friend's place in Sri Lanka. When his parents build a house in the 80s, it was still some distance away from the water. Now, some parts of the house is under water.

I also believe in Icecaps/glaciers ARE melting (maybe even as you read this)

bb0tin | August 1, 2013

You said "I also believe in Icecaps/glaciers ARE melting (maybe even as you read this)"
There is no need to 'believe' and there is no maybe. The evidence is documented via ground, air and and satellite monitoring. The visual retreat of the glaciers and icecaps, and the change in mass have been measured in multiple ways eg: volume and gravity changes. You can see this for yourself by watching the movie Chasing Ice or by watching this National Geographic link provided by tobi_ger You can read about the arctic ice cap changes in this blog or go straight to the source in this link

tobi_ger | August 1, 2013

@ AGW deniers

Please skip this post, you just risk popping a blood vessel... and I don't expect any productive reply anyway.

@ bb0tin, Tesla-David, justineet and anyone else interested

Just something I find useful sharing (with runtime):
Dr Jennifer Francis, Senate Testimony 07/18/13 (5:44)

Dr Richard Milne - Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial (1:19:56)

Dr David Reay - Climate change: the solutions (1:16:18)

Insurance Industry Warns of Climate Change and Extreme Weather (5:39)

lolachampcar | August 1, 2013

I loved this comment-

Denialism = Crimes against humanity

LionPowered | August 1, 2013

I'm staying out of this climate change debate, but Brian H said something that I totally agree with: "If you want to see environmental devastation, keep much of the planet poor and desperate."

That's also the cause of many other global issues such as terrorism and disease. On the other hand, as affluence spreads so does the demand for natural resources.

Tesla-David | August 2, 2013

@tobi_ger. Thanks for the links, great information to confront deniers who are open to facts documenting AGW. I will also pass these links on to my colleagues and friends.

Brian H | August 2, 2013

Pointman on PC hypocrisy in the press:

It should be possible to object to big government without being labelled as a redneck. It should be possible to ask the question why basic literacy and numeracy rates are now lower than they used to be without being called an educational elitist. It should be possible to discuss concerns about immigration levels without being branded a racist. It should be possible to ask why people are being forced into fuel poverty, when the global temperature hasn’t risen in nearly two decades, without being compared to a holocaust denier.
You see, they’re no longer allowed in the mainstream media (MSM) to hurl gutter level abuse at foreigners, non-whites, non-Christians or most minorities, but if you do happen to disagree with an establishment doctrine; that stricture simply ceases to apply to you. The gloves come off and the rules of civilised discourse are forgotten. You can quite safely be called a racist, redneck, elitist, denier, sexist, flat-earther (thank you for that one from the supposed democratic leader of the free world), a shill, insane, Aryan Nation, a flag fetishist, a paid protester, a conspiracy nut or whatever they need to label you, to simply avoid addressing your awkward questions.

Brian H | August 2, 2013

Like all extreme weather stats, floods and tornadoes are on strong long-term decline:

The insurance (especially reinsurance) industry, btw, benefit from maximizing fear of unlikely events. Munich Re is notorious for leveraging hype to maximize profits. Take its warnings with shovelfuls of salt.

lolachampcar | August 2, 2013

I'll take the bait.

The difference between disagreeing and discussing points of reasonable disagreement and denying that our current energy usage path is wrong is stark.

We can discuss the general and specific deterrence of the death penalty along with its morality. We can discuss both points of view on abortion. Both these issues are contentious, elicit emotion and yet I can respectfully disagree with you.

There is no form of conversation we can have as to why we should continue to consume everything in sight at the expense of the planet we pass to those that follow us. Sure, you can pretty much do whatever you want short of uncapping every well on the planet and lighting the spillage on fire and fully live your life with little impact. That does not make it right and it most certainly does not make it acceptable.

There is no gray area here where we can respectfully disagree. You, and all those that advocate consuming everything in sight simply for short term personal gain or blatant stupidity, are simply wrong. Normally, I could care less if you are wrong. It's your life and if you want to foul it up, be my guest. Natural selection will weed you out. In this instance I can not allow the words to be said without pointing out that there is no reason to do it, no justification for the selfishness and no way it can be allowed to continue.

You'll notice that my argument is based on basic sense, not science. There is nothing to debate with common sense; either you posses it or you do not. If you are not capable of seeing the obvious your voice should be removed from the conversation. Your stupidity endangers the place I live and thus can not go unchallenged.

Brian H | August 2, 2013

The "science" claims by the AGW proponents fail the most basic requirements: disclosure, honest attempts to test and falsify, etc. The claims are rhetoric, used to attempt to discredit alternatives, in lieu of validation testing. Provide a single instance of proper hypothesis formulation and challenge-testing. It has never happened.

bb0tin | August 3, 2013

@Everyone who is not Brian
1) Google "climate change hypothesis test challenge"
2) Follow the very first link to this:
3) Volkerise 'buffoon'

tobi_ger | August 3, 2013

@Brian H
As a counter to your Pointman quote (your 3rd post above):

Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, Australia, from an opinion in 'Australasian Science' from May 2009 (parphrased here from EureakAlert):

"In climate science and policy, those few apparently well-educated people who continue to deny the now vast body of scientific knowledge and analysis on the causes and consequences of global warming are variously called sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists. Whatever the label you attach to them, they are all cut of the same anti-intellectual cloth[...]

Their business is the dissemination of disinformation, doubt and unscientific nonsense. One of their most regular ploys is to leverage the widespread lack of public appreciation of how science operates."


Brian, in many posts you declared AGW scientists being corrupt and only in for the money (paraphrased).
I'd like to point out that (one of) your favorites, Prof. Curry runs a non-profit company whose software product was primarily developed for a client in the petroleum industry.
No bells going off there then...?

Brian H | August 3, 2013

The "body of scientific knowledge" is mostly simulations, and full of holes you could drive a semi thru, blindfolded. As I noted, little or none of it is properly documented (raw data, analysis details, etc.), and the essential good-faith falsification efforts to qualify as actual scientific hypotheses are universally missing.


jbunn | August 3, 2013

Wow, that's an amazing statement as the vast majority of researchers currently working in the field of climatology (about 95%) accept the AGW hypothesis based on the data.

lolachampcar | August 3, 2013

Brian wrote it. Not amazing at all :(

Brian H | August 3, 2013

That 9x% agreement meme is a feeble delusion. You discredit yourself by citing it. Here's a more honest assessment:
"According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims."

tobi_ger | August 3, 2013

Within this context that first paper is - in your words - outdated and bull fecies.
It's data is from end of 2007 within a single organisation (APEGA, Alberta, CA), many of whose members work in the petrol industry, and mixes public with professionals' opinions and does not represent a "majority of scientists" at all. It itself even agrees that there is a scientific consensus!

Referencing an article from the Heartland Institute is sarcastic. That dreadful POS of a political, religous, money-fed organisation has no credibility in my book.

The latest consensus study across scientific papers is here:
Quote: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

That is scientific consensus.

Brian H | August 3, 2013

If it's science, consensus is irrelevant.

IAC, the consensus you're talking about is achieved in the instances you mention by a trick of wording. The assertion as agreed to with the implied word "any" inserted: Humans are causing ANY global warming. However minute and insignificant their influence is. The same trickery is used in switching between the statistical and secular meanings of the word "significant", by the way. To statisticians and scientists, it means probably not due to chance. It does not mean material or important, yet that is how it's pushed to the public.

As Judith Curry wrote last October:

"The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC."

justineet | August 4, 2013

Sure Brian H...let's fry up our plant....let's convert every corner of our planet into North Africa Shara desert or Arizona dry land and expect everything to be hunky dory!! BTW, did you know north Africa and Arizona were at one time as fertile as Kansas or Iowa??

justineet | August 4, 2013

....meant fry up our PLANET, not plant.........

Carefree | August 4, 2013

If you haven't realized yet - you will NEVER change Brian's opinion. Just stop wasting your time arguing with him - there is no point.

tobi_ger | August 4, 2013

Americans' Concerns About Global Warming on the Rise - Gallup, April 8, 2013

A new Pew poll on global warming - NCSE, April 4, 2013
From the referenced source article, a section "Opinions about Global Warming" states:
"Currently, 69% say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. Among those who see evidence of global warming, more say it is caused mostly by human activity (42% of the public) than by natural patterns in the earth’s environment (23%). Nearly three-in-ten Americans (27%) say there is no solid evidence of warming."

Americans Think the Climate Is Changing and Support Some Actions - Duke University, Feb. 2013

Climate Change Denial Is Affecting Education - NCSE, Jan. 5, 2012

Brian H | August 5, 2013

Heavy PR push, won't last long. The nonsense is too blatant.
"The world is a bit warmer. The carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere are increasing. Plants are doing better than before because of the higher carbon dioxide[32]. The sea is rising in a barely detectable way. Climatic disasters are no worse than previously. The animal kingdom is being squeezed by the growth of a single species, us, but that has nothing to do with global warming.

And that is why there is a climate of scepticism."

tobi_ger | August 5, 2013

Your fairy tale was already refuted to be the actual nonsense:

Climate change will cause widespread global-scale loss of common plants and animals
- University of East Anglia, May 2013

Climate change helps then quickly
stunts growth, decade-long study shows
- Northern Arizona University, April 9, 2012

Drought Drives Decade-Long Decline in Plant Growth
- NASA, August 2010

New study links wildfires and climate change
- July 30 2012

justineet | August 5, 2013

@Brian H....please Brian H don't make me post quotes from folks who still think the earth is Flat..........that's what ur engaging in....getting quotes from fringe elements in any subject is pretty easy.

lolachampcar | August 5, 2013

u mean it's not?

Brian H | August 5, 2013

UEA is so deep into pushing the BS it kicked off that it has no credibility. As for drought, it comes from cooling, which dries the atmosphere. Warming expands viable plant habitat.
Human output is undetectable noise.

Brian H | August 5, 2013

The strong temperature increase that followed the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) of about 18,000 years ago has melted enough ice to raise SL by 120 meters (400 feet). The rate of rise was quite rapid at first and controlled by the melting of the huge ice sheets covering North America and the Eurasian land mass. These disappeared about 8000-5000 years ago; but the WAIS continued to melt, albeit at a much lower rate -- and it is still melting at about the same rate today. Other, smaller WAIS-like ice sheets may have existed in the Antarctic, but have already melted away.
The principal conclusion is that this melting will continue for another 7000 years or so, until the WAIS disappears -- unless another ice age takes over before then. Moreover, there is nothing that we can do to stop this future sea level rise! It is as inevitable as the ocean tides -- as long as the Holocene (the present warm interglacial period) survives. Fortunately, coral reefs will continue to grow, as they have in the past, to keep up with SL rise. The rest of us will just have to adapt -- as our ancestors did some 10,000 years ago. At least, we are better equipped to deal with environmental changes.

Brian H | August 5, 2013

For the less mathematically sophisticated, some friendly fire:

justineet | August 5, 2013

Briah H.....slow down, I am starting to think u r in the coal business......

Brian H | August 5, 2013

Real 'Carbon Denial'

Brian H | August 5, 2013

Global greens develop stupid, horrible, expensive, counterproductive climate policy agendas, and then try to use the imprimatur of “science” as a way to panic the world into adopting them. All too often, in other words, they fall prey to the temptation to make what the science says “clearer than truth” in Acheson’s phrase, in order to silence debate on their cockamamie policy fixes. A favorite tactic is to brand any dissent from the agenda as “anti-science.” It is not only a dishonest tactic; it’s a counterproductive one, generating new waves of skepticism with every exaggeration of fact.