Glimmerjim wrote:so you are stating that you do indeed believe in anthropogenic global warmic
I have ALWAYS said that. More CO2 will everything else being equal lead to a higher average temperature than otherwise would have existed. That does not tell us how much more for a given level of CO2 increase nor does it tell us the consequences.
Glimmerjim wrote:and that you also believe that it could possibly have a beneficial impact for possibly the next 36 years?
And likely a lot longer than that.
Glimmerjim wrote: yet we should not make changes NOW to attempt to prevent it?
Should we develop technology CAPABLE of preventing it while we gain the understanding necessary to see if the huge harm from higher priced energy is justified or not? Absolutely. If we could make nuclear the most economic form of energy by far, no government action is needed and the cost to society would be nothing and the impacts don't matter unless less CO2 is shown to be very harmful, are you open to that possibility?
Wind, Solar, energy efficiency, etc. are NOT capable of preventing global warming AND maintaining a modern lifestyle the world over. Sure we can force most of the world to live in abject poverty and the powerful jetsetters in the U.S. can live their lifestyles, but not with ever expanding quality of life around the world. Nuclear is the only option that seems plausible. I simply do not believe carbon sequestration is a viable option, but I have no problem doing the research. There is just too many concerns about the cost and environmental impacts. Plus my reason for supporting nuclear is NOT because of CO2. It is all the other health, safety, and environmental reasons. Many of which are greatly improved by using natural gas instead of coal.
Glimmerjim wrote:And it is NOT a looming PROBLEM?
Nowhere did I say it was catastrophic after midcentury
Would it be logic to assume based on what I said that I think we go off a cliff at that point?
My belief is that we are probably good for a century if not longer for the status quo which includes a lot of economic growth. However, NOBODY KNOWS. So when you do not know if your neighbor is causing you harm, do you hit him with a fine, a tax, take away his property? Hell no! The burden of proof falls on you to prove the harm is real before you can penalize him and you have to do it in a completely open way so he can review and challenge all of your assumptions and validity of your data.
It is a potential problem, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Do you want to live in a world where significant penalties can be imposed without conclusive evidence just because people fear what you are doing? I hope not.
If all technologies capable are far more costly, then the real cost of higher CO2 is necessary to decide which is the least bad of two bad choices. We do not know the cost of the technologies nor do we know the cost of more CO2 or even if that cost is negative in the relevant future. We should figure those out in the most open and honest way possible.
Glimmerjim wrote:I don't even have a clue how to respond, except that I am inferring that you consider your personal life as the only one worth concerning yourself over.
If I just cared about my personal life I would be for a massive carbon tax. We wouldn't be building just 5 commercial reactors is the U.S. we would be building dozens. There would be such a flood of research money in my field and my wallet would fatten considerable. Intellectual honest is what I value and regardless of the personal benefit, the evidence is not sufficient to justify the cost. I think we can reduce the cost, if we kept politics out of nuclear regulations, but just like the fear of the unknown drives people to fear higher CO2 levels, when it comes to radiation exposure, fear drives people to insanity.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Rooftop solar kills more people per unit energy than nuclear even including Chernobyl which is not any more relevant than using China in the risk of U.S. coal. There are obviously pretty large uncertainties in these, but not so much as likely to change the relative values in a significant way. One major one is a wildly overly conservative estimate of the risk of radiation. That number is probably the absolute max while others are probably closer to best estimate averages. People are driven by fear and not risk and most of that fear comes from the fear of the unknown, the new, the unusual. These numbers will change almost no minds even if they have no doubt of their accuracy.
Glimmerjim wrote:To paraphrase...approximately 6% of all scientists consider themselves as Republican, while approximately 55% consider themselves as Democrat.......well, that's counterintuitive and just....weird, eh?
Not really. Many scientists are unemployable. I went to school with a lot of people who were working to get a Ph.D. in Physics while getting a M.S. in Health Physics (more or less like an Industrial Hygienist, but for workplaces involving radiation sources and radioactive materials). I have an M.S. in Health Physics, but the study was focused more heavily on environmental radiation protection than occupational radiation protection. Is a person who leans Republican or Democrat more likely to pursue a degree with limited prospects for employment? Engineers lean heavily Republican. Most do not identify themselves as scientists.
Personally I don't like being a scientists. It was not my plan. I actually have engineering drawings on my desk for the first time in a long time
What do they define as a scientist? This seems consistent with my experience if you look at Figure 2.http://www.psych.umn.edu/sentience/files/Gage_2010.pdf
Biological sciences and social sciences are much like art majors and engineers are much like business/econ majors.
My guess is they do not include every person with at least a bachelor's of science degree, but a select subset and if you look at Figure 2, you see why picking your definition of scientist can so dramatically impact the results. Most engineers look down upon scientists because far too many of them these days are engaged in mental masturbation. Think Big Bang Theory, but mostly people with IQ's around 100 and not 150.
BTW, would you use a poll that shows business/economics majors leaning heavily Republican as proof that their policies are better because as a group, the people with the relevant education lean that way? I doubt it. Pick and choose what supports what you believe
BTW, I have had many letters to the editor published. I have NEVER used Dr. in front of my name. Too many self-described scientists like to use that label as an appeal to authority so they can avoid an appeal to logic and facts that they do not have. If you cannot make your case without providing your credentials, you cannot make your case and all you are providing is your opinion which is only an expert opinion if it is within the very narrow slice where you are an expert, which most scientists it is a stretch to describe them as an expert. Anything outside of that area of expertise, if it exists at all, is just an opinion and being a scientist is irrelevant. My opinion and personal life are no more or less valid than others. Most people, particular self-described scientists, think their opinion and personal life are more important. Scientists succumb to human nature. It's pretty easy to prove with a reductio ad hitlerium argument and his scientific and intellectual support.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.