Freedom Gas!

[TheDeamon]

Progressivism really troubles me in a way that classical liberalism didn't.  The closest I can come to explaining it is that progressives act like the moral conservatives of yesteryear, they impose morality based laws and harshly punish transgression.  And many times the laws are of the unworkable "I'll know when I see standard" that actually applied in pornography cases for a while.  I mean I've listed it out before, but the new left really doesn't believe in civil liberties (when applied to their opponents) and believes that they can use their own "hyper-liberties" as a sword to overrun those of the other side.  When you add in America is always evil on top of that you get AOC and Anti-fa as the new normal.

The best historical analogues for the modern day progressive movement is most likely the Temperance Movement of the late 19th Century and very early 20th century. Or the war on drugs for the past 50-some years.

"We don't like this. We find this immoral. We're going to make it illegal. We also don't care that society has been largely fine with it for longer than living memory."

[Crunch]

Although the reporter has it slightly backwards.

The reporter is quoting the research. Why shoot the messenger?

[TheDeamon]

Although the reporter has it slightly backwards.

The reporter is quoting the research. Why shoot the messenger?

Because they're making the "umbrella effect" appear to cause warming, mostly through ambiguous phrasing. The "Umbrella effect" from clouds in this scenario causes cooling(think being in shade versus direct sunlight on a hot day). Clouds CAN cause a "blanket effect" which does create a slight amount of warming, because it traps heat already present beneath the cloud.

That said, the whole point about cosmic rays is Earth has received fewer of them than is typical for the past several decades because of intense solar activity in relation to the Sun's Magnetic Field and "the solar wind" for which sunspots are a good proxy. High sunspot activity = high magnetic activity = reduced cosmic ray exposure on Earth which then leads to reduced cloud cover on earth which means lower albedo effect on earth which means  increased global temperatures due to increased solar absorption.

That the Sun kicked into a more active period of sunspot activity(across multiple cycles) that happened to coincide with the beginning of the satellite record makes a lot of this speculative as it requires instrument record data that we don't really have at this time. At least until/unless the coming Solar cycle turns out to be as anemic as many believe it will be.

[DonaldD]

AGW is a hoax

Why would one study, either supporting AGW or not supporting AGW, be sufficient to make someone so certain of anything?  It's just silly, given the thousands of papers on the topic, spanning multiple different disciplines.

That's not even getting into the relevance of the study... a study which is mostly a rehash of another study done 5 years ago.  For instance, cosmic ray flux on Earth has not shown a significant or consistent trend over the period of warming (during the satellite period) - in fact, cosmic ray flux lagged temperature changes over the period of 1970 to 1985.  Another major problem with ascribing anything to cosmic rays is that although galactic cosmic rays do lead to aerosol formation, the aerosols do not grow enough to form cloud-condensation nuclei, by 2 orders of magnitude.

[Wayward Son]

A bleak new federal report found that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to levels the world has not seen in at least 800,000 years, highlighting the irreversible and mounting deleterious effects of human activity on the planet, as ABC News reported.

Global carbon dioxide concentrations reached a record of 407.4 parts per million during 2018, the study found. That is 2.4 ppm greater than 2017 and "the highest in the modern instrumental record and in ice core records dating back 800,000 years," the report said, according to CNN.

It wasn't just the amount of carbon dioxide that set record levels. Other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide also continued a rapid rise into the atmosphere. Together, the global warming power of greenhouse gases was 43 percent stronger than in 1990, according to the State of the Climate report released Monday by the American Meteorological Society, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information.

Greenhouse gases are not the only thing rising. Global sea levels also reached their highest levels on record for the seventh consecutive year, as ABC News reported. The report says that ocean levels are rising about an inch per decade, but that number may need to be revised if ice melt at the poles accelerates.

For global temperatures, 2018 ranked fourth, behind 2016, 2015 and 2017 for the warmest on record. That top four finish for 2018 is despite a La Niña system over the Pacific that cooled ocean waters for part of the year.

So far, 2019 is on track to be the warmest year in recorded history, according to NOAA.

Global sea temperatures also set a record level in 2018. "This record heat reflects the continuing accumulation of thermal energy in the top 2,300 feet (700 meters) of the ocean," according to NOAA. "Oceans absorb more than 90 percent of Earth's excess heat from global warming."

The State of the Climate report noted that glaciers continued to melt at an alarming rate for the 30th consecutive year, as CNN reported...

The 29th annual release of the State of the Climate report was led by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information and relies on contributions from more than 470 scientists from nearly 60 countries around the world. It incorporates tens of thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets and provides a detailed update on global climate indicators and notable weather events, according to NOAA.

[Seriati]

So I think Rick Perry (partisan I know) kind of captures the issue that the right has with the demands that the US make major and destructive changes, while ignoring that it is leading the world on improving it's efficiency and reducing it's pollution, in the link below:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-democrats-climate-change-bernie-sanders-aoc

It feels like a world of massive hypocrites demanding that the US hobble itself while they do so much damage on their own that nothing the US could ever do would solve, or even slow, the problem.    Again, the US would do far more to help the world's environment by increasing it's production of carbon with production that is more pollution efficient than China and the third world can or will replicate.

[D.W.]

Or we could create or improve on 0 carbon technologies, improving our own local conditions while creating a global powerhouse  industry of something everyone is going to want...  It's an investment, not a sacrifice.

[Seriati]

I love it, let's go all in on Vaporware and let the Earth burn while it "develops."

[TheDeamon]

Or we could create or improve on 0 carbon technologies, improving our own local conditions while creating a global powerhouse  industry of something everyone is going to want...  It's an investment, not a sacrifice.

There is a difference between creating/improving on "0 carbon technologies" that are not competitive, and going "all in" on using non-competitive technology in order to reduce our impact, thus resulting in business moving to more competitive markets, where more environmental harm happens as a consequence of our actions.

It's counterproductive.

Of course, we can also go back to harping on the refrain about another "zero carbon" technology that could be getting used, which has a proven record for being being reliable and consistent baseline grid power generation. But isn't getting used because many environmental groups move to stop it whenever it gets brought up.

[Wayward Son]

There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

[Crunch]

There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.

[D.W.]

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.

No, that's what government is for.  Liberty and Happieness seem to be in question now and then, but life is first on the list for a reason.  Use force.  That's what it's there for.

[Wayward Son]

There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.

And, apparently, Conservatism is to deny any fact that might limit a person's liberty or profits, no matter who may be hurt or how many.  Case in point. 

[Seriati]

There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.

Sure can, nuclear power coming soon to a community near you.

We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

It's a nice thought, but you can't make an international deal without the other countries agreeing, and not one of the non-western countries will agree to and then comply with pollution friendly, economically bad constraints on their business.

You can use tariffs, which is exactly what Trump is doing.  Are you saying you agree with him?

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

And we already have, which is why the US has been THE LEADER in pollution control in industry for decades, and is still making substantive gains in reducing pollution and in paying to develop pollution friendly tech. 

Give us credit, and look to the countries that aren't trying to make it better.

[Crunch]

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.

No, that's what government is for.  Liberty and Happieness seem to be in question now and then, but life is first on the list for a reason.  Use force.  That's what it's there for.

And this is why the second amendment is so important.

[Crunch]

There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.

And, apparently, Conservatism is to deny any fact that might limit a person's liberty or profits, no matter who may be hurt or how many.  Case in point. 

You’re talking about ideological fact there, Lysenko style. Imagining a world that may be, a fantasy.

[Wayward Son]

There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.

Sure can, nuclear power coming soon to a community near you.

And we may come to that, in the near future.

We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

It's a nice thought, but you can't make an international deal without the other countries agreeing, and not one of the non-western countries will agree to and then comply with pollution friendly, economically bad constraints on their business.

You can use tariffs, which is exactly what Trump is doing.  Are you saying you agree with him?

There are ways we can encourage other countries to comply.  Subsidies.  Trade guarantees.  Special trade status.  I'm sure you can think of more.  And, yes, tariffs.

I'm not against tariffs, per se.  They are a tool, one that should be used very sparingly and delicately.  After all, it is basically a tax on the U.S. consumers of imported goods that has the effect of making those imported good more expense to us.  It puts pressure on the foreign country, while hurting us at the same time.

That does not imply that I agree with that idiot in the White House who doesn't understand tariffs and uses it to nilly-willy like a spoiled 10-year-old. 

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

And we already have, which is why the US has been THE LEADER in pollution control in industry for decades, and is still making substantive gains in reducing pollution and in paying to develop pollution friendly tech. 

Give us credit, and look to the countries that aren't trying to make it better.

We have made progress, but hardly enough--CO2 levels are at their highest in the last 800,000 years.   U.S. emissions increased in 2018, although they are projected to decrease over the next two years.  But none is due to Republican leadership or the man in the White House, who denies there is even a problem.  You can't solve a problem you don't even recognize as being a problem.

We can do much better.  But we have to decide to do it, decide how we want to do it, and to do it.

[Fenring]

I'm not against tariffs, per se.  They are a tool, one that should be used very sparingly and delicately.  After all, it is basically a tax on the U.S. consumers of imported goods that has the effect of making those imported good more expense to us.  It puts pressure on the foreign country, while hurting us at the same time.

Tariffs are a strategy, which if employed incorrectly hurt 'us'. If employed correctly they do not. 'Us' marked like this because some people will always benefit from policies that generally screw over the populace, while good policies are going to be harmful to those particular areas. But this notion that higher prices due to tariffs harms America is the sort of short-term mistake that led to cheap crap being the payoff for losing all the jobs. It's a misreading of economics 101 where "lower prices = profit!" That's not how macro really works.

[TheDrake]

Well, Trump must believe in global warming, now he's trying to buy Greenland - probably because when the ice melts there will be room for dozens of new golf courses.

[Fenring]

Well, Trump must believe in global warming, now he's trying to buy Greenland - probably because when the ice melts there will be room for dozens of new golf courses.

He's like Lex Luthor. BEACHFRONT PROPERTY!!!

[Wayward Son]

Tariffs are a strategy, which if employed incorrectly hurt 'us'. If employed correctly they do not. 'Us' marked like this because some people will always benefit from policies that generally screw over the populace, while good policies are going to be harmful to those particular areas. But this notion that higher prices due to tariffs harms America is the sort of short-term mistake that led to cheap crap being the payoff for losing all the jobs. It's a misreading of economics 101 where "lower prices = profit!" That's not how macro really works.

It's not that "lower prices = profit!"  It's "lower prices = more buying power for everyone."  Those who can produce a product more efficiently should do so, because it makes it more available to everyone.  Higher prices = everyone not be able to afford as much.

Of course, what jobs each country can do is efficiently is important, too.  And the fact that each country must have jobs in order to afford to import is true, too.  And that some countries can distort their "efficiency" with subsidies, cheap labor, ignoring environmental regulations (!), etc. is also a factor.  But the bottom line is that tariffs always increases the prices of imports.  And if the imports are cheaper than what can be made domestically (or from some other source), this will increase the price of items, decreasing buying power.  Thus they should be used sparingly, and with delicacy.

That much I remember from Econ 101.

[TheDrake]

Lower COGS does equal profit. A certain amount of what China sends directly affect the bottom line of manufacturers here. Steel tariffs anyone? And guess what, those are lost jobs if the COGS goes high enough to make the business lose money. If higher retail prices are felt, that's less shopping, which is fewer jobs.

It's a complex equation, I'm not sure how the net balance works out. But I wonder sometimes about the obsession with manufacturing jobs while ignoring all the other kinds of jobs.

[Crunch]

Now do taxes.

[Crunch]

Well, Trump must believe in global warming, now he's trying to buy Greenland - probably because when the ice melts there will be room for dozens of new golf courses.

He's like Lex Luthor. BEACHFRONT PROPERTY!!!

Some people are looking and Greenland and saying, “Why?”.  I say, “Why not?”

[Wayward Son]

Why not?  Soren Espersen, foreign affairs spokesman for the Danish People's Party, said it best:

"The thought of Denmark selling 50,000 citizens to the United States is completely ridiculous." 

[TheDrake]

It's just Trump's latest way to make America whiter with 50,000 instant immigrants. 

[TheDrake]

Updating my position on nuclear. I could really get behind the 4th gen reactors:

Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[33]
100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[34]
Broader range of fuels, and even unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a Closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.

wikipedia.

It addresses my concerns about nuclear waste, even reducing it by consuming the spent fuel of other reactors. Some designs have very safe designs that slow their own reaction down to prevent meltdown or breach.

Also, about the economic argument. While it is true that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear per kwh, that is based on current deployment. The more widespread you take solar and wind, the less productive each new installation is, because the best spots are already taken. Nuclear doesn't have locality inefficiency.

[TheDeamon]

It addresses my concerns about nuclear waste, even reducing it by consuming the spent fuel of other reactors. Some designs have very safe designs that slow their own reaction down to prevent meltdown or breach.
Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.

Welcome to EBR2, April 1986. (Yes, the same month that Chernobyl happened in)

Except the reactors that can consume spent fuel from other reactors are going to end up being "breeders" of one stripe or another. Which means they're creating plutonium before they burn it off through fission.

And as was argued with EBR2, that the Plutonium isn't created in anything close to a "weapons grade" doesn't matter. That it would require extensive additional processing also doesn't matter. That it generates Plutonium at all is reason enough to kill the technology.