Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'

This is actually a good post, but since you are not a climate scientist but are going to choose a "side" then why aren't you going with the 98% of people who research this stuff instead of the 2% who don't? Sounds like you have another agenda you aren't divulging.

Says the guys sitting at a computer designed by scientists, posting on the internet, designed by scientists, about to beat off to some porn that was captured on HD cameras, designed by scientists, and who will then wipe himself up with a Wet Ones, designed....

Wait Wait What? wrote:

Apple Developer wrote:

There are two reasons why people join the climate change movement. One type is motivated by sheer hatred of man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. This group includes the ivory tower intellectuals who dedicate their lives to destroying the minds of colleges students. The second type is primarily concerned with social approval and is terrified of being seen as sympathetic to man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. He doesn't care about scientific truth; his goal is to appease others, and he will endorse whatever idea is the most socially advantageous. That's Nicholas Stern.

Yep. You nailed it.

Science is the biggest scam in the history of the world. They are an army of thousands funded by the libtards, brainwashing the sheeple, and dedicated to making sure that mankind remains in ignorance.

You seem to be misreading a number of comments.

Climate change (is occurring in only one direction i.e. global warming) will always be both a political issue and a science fact. One should not dismiss the issue because it is politicized.

Truth is the goal. Truth is obtained by scientifically assessing evidence. Right now there is a preponderance of evidence showing that activities of man are contributing to an increase in global temps(surface, air, water etc)

A thought experiment-based in reality.

I have an unheated garage-It is lit by two 100 watt incandescent bulbs. I rarely turn those lights on-as the garage door opener has a light too that gets used daily. Probably once or twice a week, I might burn the 100 watters for 10 or 15 minutes as I look for a screwdriver, or paintbrush, etc. Since I rarely use those lights, the bulbs last for years-seriously-I think I have replaced only one of them in the 15 years I have owned the garage.

Now comes the thought experiment part-Because of global warming issues-the federal government has banned the purchase of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs. 13 months ago, I was able to purchase such an item for 75 cents. Now, I must purchase either a compact fluorescent for 5 or 6 dollars-or an LED for about 25 dollars. Since my garage is unheated the compact fluorescents do not function-the ballasts don't fire so they are unacceptable for my application. The LEDs offer a energy saving substitute-they function in low temperatures-but at a cost of 25 dollars each.

So, to light my garage, I am forced to expend 50 dollars of capital. The LEDs consume about 30 watts of electricity-versus the 200 watts of the incandescents-however, I only run them about 20 hours a year. At 15 cents a KWhour-I spend about a dime for electricity for the LEDs per year, versus 60 cents for the incandescents. The incandescents would cost me about a buck and half of capital. To payback the cost of the LEDs will take a century-if they last that long.

Wouldn't my 50 dollars of capital have far more impact on humanity if it were spent to help build a water treatment plant in India-rather than sitting largely idle in my garage-because the government insists that all incandescent light bulbs are created equal?

3% of scientists do not believe the earth is warming

18% of Americans do not believe the earth revolves around the sun

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/Image.jpeg

* International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2011

** Ethan Siegel

Actually just that last one. I clicked the wrong post. Shoot me...

Avocado's Number wrote:

You seem to be misreading a number of comments.

Next time you go to Home Depot, go to aisle 4 and purchase the water treatment on the second shelf and send it to India...Reality means doing things that can actually be done.

Tea Leaf wrote:

3% of scientists do not believe the earth is warming

18% of Americans do not believe the earth revolves around the sun

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/Image.jpeg

* International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2011

** Ethan Siegel

The earth doesn't orbit around the sun, dip $hit. It orbits around a spot between the two.

Wait Wait What? wrote:

Yep. You nailed it.

Science is the biggest scam in the history of the world. They are an army of thousands funded by the libtards, brainwashing the sheeple, and dedicated to making sure that mankind remains in ignorance.

I thought this was great sarcasm, funny as hell. Then I read some more of your posts. Now I am confused.

So....

Fine work, keep making a mockery of the fools.

OR

First of all, LED bulbs don't cost $25. Sure, you can find some that do, but you can also get them for less than half that.Second, you're talking about a case of two bulbs in your garage. What about your whole house? Or everyone's house? There isn't a policy in existance that is 100% perfect for every situation. If you think that your two bulbs are a good reason to not enact a policy then you're pretty short sighted. If you weren't so short sighted, you would probably spend $6 on incandenscents to keep around for the rest of your life to put in your garage.

Wait Wait What? wrote:

Science is the biggest scam in the history of the world.

Science is the greatest thing in the history of the world! It allows oil companies to turn useless rocks into life-sustaining energy.

The problem with global warming is that it has no scientific credibility and is pure and utter bullshit that members of the anti-industrial movement expect us to accept based on nothing more than their prestige. Their reasoning goes as follows: "We are prestigious scientists, therefore, you are to accept whatever conclusions we promote without questioning our methods or motivations, and if you're against us, then you're against SCIENCE itself!" That's how people like you try to intimidate opponents of your pathetic pseudoscience.

Seen one seen them all wrote:

The earth doesn't orbit around the sun, dip $hit. It orbits around a spot between the two.

Wrong, numbnuts. That "spot"--the Earth/Sun barycenter--is actually within the Sun itself (because Sol's mass is hundreds of thousands of times greater than Earth's, and Earth is only ~93 million miles from Sol).

Earth orbits the barycenter, which is well within the Sun; so it's perfectly accurate to say Earth orbits the Sun.

LeadvilleNative wrote:

Since my garage is unheated the compact fluorescents do not function-the ballasts don't fire so they are unacceptable for my application.

You can buy CFL lamps rated to start in sub-zero temperatures. Generally the instant-on cold cathode lamps will work in this application.

You aren't too bright are you?

Science doesn't have an agenda. Although some scientists do.

But the point is, greenhouse gases hold in heat, otherwise earth, the atmosphere, and life would not have existed as it has. You buy that, or are you a cray cray creationist too?

Humans have added greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the rat and amount have increased since the start of the industrial age. Can you believe that?

It has been demonstrated scientifically that adding greenhouse gas concentrations to the atmosphere results in higher atmospheric temperatures, resulting in exactly what we have been seeing in recent decades: melting glaciers, higher ocean temperatures, shrinking ice cap, coastal erosion, sea level rise, droughts in some areas, but monsoonal conditions elsewhere.

About the only people who don't believe in these simple concepts are a handful of scientists (at least a vast minority) and those who adhere to the conservative agenda, particularly in the USA. The information that indicates that human caused climate change far outweighs the objections. But be our guest--State Your Case if you think otherwise!

Yes the climate will change, and will continue to do so forever. What's unique about this is that it is human caused, and that the change has been brought about very rapidly in a geological sense, and even biological. We are witnessing widespread change in a matter of decades.

At Home Depot, LEDs that are equivalent to 100 watt incandescents do cost 25 dollars. The ones for 10 bucks are 40 watt equivalent.You are correct-it's only two bulbs in my garage. And in my house, I have been burning CFLs for over a decade-because it makes economic sense where total life cycle cost is dominated by energy usage. In the case of garages, or closets or basement storerooms, capital cost is the driving expense-and I should not be forced to spend money when a perfectly functional and cost effective solution is available. Freedom, my man.The reality is, GE and Phillips have much greater margins on CFLs and LEDs. They can sell a incandescent and make a nickel, or sell a CFL or LED-paint it "green" and make a couple bucks. If they shut down their incandescent factories-there was nothing stopping an entrepeneur from coming in and manufacturing the same thing-the patents on light bulbs expired long ago. When the market decided that the CFL's weren't all that great-GE and Phillips joined with the environmental movement in an effort to ban incandescents-so people have no choice but to buy the higher margin product. And GE and Phillips have no motivation to make better CFLs and LEDs and because the low up-front cost alternative is gone. They just print money from a captive market.Sometimes, the solutions to climate change are worse than the problem. Like, when morons tell me I have to do something that makes no sense.The policy that exists that is perfect is freedom. If I choose to believe that a CFL will last 6 years, and save me 50 bucks over the life of the bulb-I should have the freedom to take that risk and pay the higher price-and reap the reward of the cheaper electricity, and the feeling that I am dumping less carbon into the atmosphere. If instead, I am skeptical of the marketing claims of the CFL manufacturer selling me the highly priced bulbs, and instead choose to take the low upfront cost alternative-which I judge to be preferable for my application-I should have that freedom.

The person to whom you are replying was being sarcastic

genuine random a hole wrote:

Wait Wait What? wrote:

Yep. You nailed it.

Science is the biggest scam in the history of the world. They are an army of thousands funded by the libtards, brainwashing the sheeple, and dedicated to making sure that mankind remains in ignorance.

I thought this was great sarcasm, funny as hell. Then I read some more of your posts. Now I am confused.

So....

Fine work, keep making a mockery of the fools.

OR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

You were right the first time.

Thanks.