A commentary slams the "false optimism" around plans to holdclimate change to 2 degrees Celsius or less

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 8:58:10 AM UTC-6, Sam Wormley quoted, in part:

"Scientific advisers must resist pressures that undermine the
integrity of climate science. Instead of spreading false optimism,
they must stand firm and defend their intellectual independence,
findings and recommendations--no matter how politically unpalatable,"
he argued.

Of course, that tends to have the result that the politicians get rid of the
scientific advisers.

But, more to the point, while scientists should indeed defend their
independence and their findings, deciding what to *do* is a political matter.
So it's the right of the electorate to choose to ignore climate change - but
they need to be made aware of the real consequences.

Trouble is that the first devastating consequences of climate change will be
experienced by the poor and vulnerable. Not right here in the wealthy countries
that have been emitting carbon at high per-capita levels. So informed democracy
is not enough.

Used to be, this was not a problem - the elites would be intelligent enough to
know when things need to be done, and they would do them. Today's governing
elites seem to be in the pockets of the rich instead of having the
characteristics of people more educated than the average man.

But the kind of lifestyle changes advocated by greenies as the solution... are
simply not remotely achievable under any combination of political
circumstances. The good news is that there's an alternative: nuclear power.
That allows the economy to function, and for heavy industry to continue to make
its contribution to national defense.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 8:03:32 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

But the kind of lifestyle changes advocated by greenies as the solution... are
simply not remotely achievable under any combination of political
circumstances.

What you meant to say is those "lifestyle changes" will not be made by the greenies for themselves.

The good news is that there's an alternative: nuclear power.

edit

I dare you to hold France up as an example of that. Go ahead. Try it.

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 7:03:32 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 8:58:10 AM UTC-6, Sam Wormley quoted, in part:

"Scientific advisers must resist pressures that undermine the
integrity of climate science. Instead of spreading false optimism,
they must stand firm and defend their intellectual independence,
findings and recommendations--no matter how politically unpalatable,"
he argued.

Of course, that tends to have the result that the politicians get rid of the
scientific advisers.

But, more to the point, while scientists should indeed defend their
independence and their findings, deciding what to *do* is a political matter.
So it's the right of the electorate to choose to ignore climate change - but
they need to be made aware of the real consequences.

Trouble is that the first devastating consequences of climate change will be
experienced by the poor and vulnerable. Not right here in the wealthy countries
that have been emitting carbon at high per-capita levels. So informed democracy
is not enough.

Used to be, this was not a problem - the elites would be intelligent enough to
know when things need to be done, and they would do them. Today's governing
elites seem to be in the pockets of the rich instead of having the
characteristics of people more educated than the average man.

But the kind of lifestyle changes advocated by greenies as the solution.... are
simply not remotely achievable under any combination of political
circumstances. The good news is that there's an alternative: nuclear power.
That allows the economy to function, and for heavy industry to continue to make
its contribution to national defense.

John Savard

Everyone, including "greenies" realize that lifestyle is important when it comes to energy. I know of no greenies who wish to go back to living in caves. That said, certainly nuclear is one technology which can provide energy for a modern society to exist. The problem is the huge capital outlay required. Right now nuclear is more expensive than gas, coal, wind and utility scale solar. Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the investment bank Lazard:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%...sion%208.0.pdf

On Thu, 14 May 2015 10:08:59 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote:

Everyone, including "greenies" realize that lifestyle is important when it comes to energy. I know of no greenies who wish to go back to living in caves. That said, certainly nuclear is one technology which can provide energy for a modern society to exist. The problem is the huge capital outlay required. Right now nuclear is more expensive than gas, coal, wind and utility scale solar. Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the investment bank Lazard:

It is also dangerous in its current form. While the probability of a
serious failure is extremely low, the cost of one is enormously high.
I've seen estimates that the cost of Fukushima to the Japanese economy
offset all the gains of their entire nuclear energy program from its
inception. And there are high indirect costs that usually aren't
factored in associated with mining, processing, and waste handing.

Nuclear has a place, but it's probably a fairly minor one in the
entire energy picture. In the medium and long run, only renewable
energy solutions make sense.

On 5/14/15 10:08 AM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the investment bank Lazard:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%...sion%208.0.pdf

That's a good review of the situation; I wonder if any of your newsgroup
opposition will bother to read it.
I suspect they would find facts undesirable - facts disturb the flow of
the rants in which they specialize.

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:14:13 PM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
On 5/14/15 10:08 AM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the investment bank Lazard:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%...sion%208.0.pdf

That's a good review of the situation; I wonder if any of your newsgroup
opposition will bother to read it.
I suspect they would find facts undesirable - facts disturb the flow of
the rants in which they specialize.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts! We'uns got gut feelin's (and you know what a gut is full of, doncha?)

On Thu, 14 May 2015 13:14:10 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote this crap:

On 5/14/15 10:08 AM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the investment bank Lazard:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%...sion%208.0.pdf

That's a good review of the situation; I wonder if any of your newsgroup
opposition will bother to read it.
I suspect they would find facts undesirable - facts disturb the flow of
the rants in which they specialize.

You must realize, of course, that the actual cost is skewed by gubmint
subsidies.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 13:14:10 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote this crap:

On 5/14/15 10:08 AM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the
investment bank Lazard:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%...sion%208.0.pdf

That's a good review of the situation; I wonder if any of your newsgroup
opposition will bother to read it.
I suspect they would find facts undesirable - facts disturb the flow of
the rants in which they specialize.

You must realize, of course, that the actual cost is skewed by gubmint
subsidies.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

If you had bothered to read the report you would have noticed that it
presents the unsubsidised levelised cost of energy.

On 5/14/15 10:01 PM, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 13:14:10 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote this crap:

On 5/14/15 10:08 AM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the investment bank Lazard:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%...sion%208.0.pdf

That's a good review of the situation; I wonder if any of your newsgroup
opposition will bother to read it.
I suspect they would find facts undesirable - facts disturb the flow of
the rants in which they specialize.

You must realize, of course, that the actual cost is skewed by gubmint
subsidies.

Come on, Horvath. You didn't have to make my point about not reading the
article for fear of facts so succinctly. The article makes a point of
documenting the effect of various subsidies. That's one reason it's such
a comprehensive review.

On Friday, 15 May 2015 13:07:59 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:

If you had bothered to read the report you would have noticed that it
presents the unsubsidised levelised cost of energy.

The cost of wearing warm clothing, indoors, in the winter, is zero.

How many of your neighbours answer the door in T-shirts and shorts while their central heating warms the birds on their roofs?

Frost and snow provide a completely free thermal report on the efficiency of your roof insulation.

How many of your neighbours can be seen running around in T-shirts and shorts, in winter, while their roofs are always free of snow and frost?

The energy you don't need to use is the cheapest on your own pocket and that of your only planet.

Any government which does not subsidise the insulation of existing homes has ABSOLUTELY no place to be sitting at climate conferences. To do so is transparent fraud.

Any government which allows its elderly citizens to die of cold in their uninsulated homes has no place subsidising ANY form of centralised energy production. To do so is transparent fraud.

No rants. No bull****ting. No politics. Just free, sensible advice.