Originally Posted by ziggyX65

But if your old car still runs perfectly well and isn't a horrible polluter, it may take a LONG time for the "greener" electric car to be a net gain to the environment to overcome the production process and the use of finite raw materials to build it.

Another need is for mechanics to go into business converting old cars into electric ones.
The new green car is already a net gain, including the production process on both sides of the political "aisle."

I'm certainly not down on electric cars here, but if one is considering replacing a perfectly functional and emissions-compliant car for a new "green" car, one needs to factor in the environmental cost of producing it.

I agree, we need to factor in all factors. Replacing old cars with new green ones may take some time, but it wouldn't take too much time. The proposal and the new standard in CA involves car companies producing as many cars as before; just greener ones. And the more demand for them there is now, the faster the car companies will convert, and new companies like Tesla will get going. There's dozens of such companies getting going now. That means new business for them; less business for dirty car companies. A great economic plus for regions like Silicon Valley willing to host the new companies! Our recovery now leads the state and the nation.

Going green is a great opportunity and a challenge like going to the Moon was. We can embrace the adventure, and put red-state cynicism and stagnant thinking behind.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Our recovery now leads the state and the nation.

Perhaps you would like to back that up with some facts.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Perhaps you would like to back that up with some facts.

James50

I just heard it on the news recently. Our unemployment rate is lower than the rest of the state and nation. That's all I'm saying.

I guess, for Santa Clara County alone, not quite lower than the nation yet. But declining much faster than the rest of the nation. San Mateo Co. is already lower.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/n...t-down-in.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

On the contrary, it is quite clear. We all just need to realize the obvious facts. The stalemate cannot be broken by dialogue with the GOP. The stalemate can only be broken by voting them out. That is so obvious, I find it hard to understand why you don't get it. Haven't you been following the news? Look what the GOP did last year in congress? Dialogue with these folks? Forget it.

I still believe in dialogue while apparently, you do not.

Originally Posted by James50

Perhaps you would like to back that up with some facts.

Heh. I was thinking, "looks like Kim Il Jong's speechwriter didn't have to spend a long time out of work."

Good for him!

Originally Posted by radind

I still believe in dialogue while apparently, you do not.

Dialogue among folks like us is what I am participating in. Why would you say I don't believe in it?

As for the Republicans in congress, how long do we talk to a wall while it is burning, before we decide to forget it and go call the fire dept.? Again, I ask you to look at their record, and then ask me about "dialogue."

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You got any facts to pound instead? Those are a lot more interesting.

You want the unobtainable. I can't provide that, so let's let it lie. I believe that the probability of AGW is very high and the risks are equally high. You seem to believe the contrary. I have roughly 99% of the world's climate scientists in my corner. You have, well, not many if any. This proves nothing, of course, but it does validate the issue - unless you want to argue that this is a vast conspiracy of some sort.

If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and accept that the probability of AGW is a coin toss, a cost benefit analysis still argues strongly for action now. Here are the choices:

1. BE PROACTIVE: Nothing we should do or even could do to mitigate AGW is something we don't have to do in any case (e.g. replace fossil fuels and lower energy consumption). Energy supplies need to be sustainable, and the current offerings aren't, at least for the most part. If addressing depletable energy source by developing non-depletable alternatives prevents runaway AGW, all the better. If nothing is needed to mitigate non-existent AGW, then nothing is lost.
2. DO NOTHING: On the other hand, if we decide that this is a hoax and do nothing, then we had better be right. Failure is not an option. If the models are right, we could trigger a massive decline in the world's forests, a collapse of the food supply and extreme weather all the time. The only upside, if that's what you choose to call it, would be a delayed cost of developing those non-depletable energy sources. Even at that, the delay is three or four decades at most.

Unless you are ideologically opposed to logic, this is a no-brainer ... even at 50/50 odds. Based solely on current trends, the odds are nowhere near that favorable.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

But if your old car still runs perfectly well and isn't a horrible polluter, it may take a LONG time for the "greener" electric car to be a net gain to the environment to overcome the production process and the use of finite raw materials to build it.

I'm certainly not down on electric cars here, but if one is considering replacing a perfectly functional and emissions-compliant car for a new "green" car, one needs to factor in the environmental cost of producing it.

Agreed. Totally agreed.

Originally Posted by James50

And last January was one of the coldest on record.

James50

But as a whole, the year was one of the warmest, on a global basis. In fact, the string of records or near records is well outside the statistical norm (i.e. +/- 3 sigma). Here's a graph I'm sure you've seen.

I'm sure you've seen this one, too.

Neither graph proves AWG, but it begs the question: prove it's not true. For some reason, your side in the debate seems to be self-empowered to demand proof without offering any in return.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

For some reason, your side in the debate seems to be self-empowered to demand proof without offering any in return.

I have no side. I am trying to pass along stuff that I read that cast doubt on the models. Some of it would give an open minded person some reason to doubt. The left has made this into a political test. I don't think it has much to do with politics. My own view is slowly changing from someone who more or less believed in AGW and that it was harmful to someone who thinks the world is warming but probably not as fast as what the IPCC says and that it will not do the damage people say. I am not a fervent believer either way, but am trying to pay attention. I inherently mistrust consensus on complicated issues especially when it is promoted for political purposes.

James50

So just for my own personal amusement a question for the folks who wake up in a cold sweat at night over the whole global warming thing: What concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will destroy the earth? How many parts per million are we talking about here before mankind shits the bed?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Dialogue among folks like us is what I am participating in. Why would you say I don't believe in it?

As for the Republicans in congress, how long do we talk to a wall while it is burning, before we decide to forget it and go call the fire dept.? Again, I ask you to look at their record, and then ask me about "dialogue."

You seem to believe that you already have all the 'right' answers with no interest in real dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Since we have different views on what is likely to happen, we will see how this develops over the next ten years.

Originally Posted by radind

You seem to believe that you already have all the 'right' answers with no interest in real dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Since we have different views on what is likely to happen, we will see how this decleops over the next ten years.

No, you are confounding different things again, rather than respond to my point. Just accusing someone of thinking they have all the right answers, instead of responding to his point, is not "dialogue" anyway.

We can't afford to "see what develops;" we need to participate to see that things develop better.

Almost nobody seems to "agree" with me here, and yet I am continuing to dialogue; so what's your point?

I even try to dialogue (up to a point) with the folks at Theology Online, so don't talk to me about dialogue-ing with people who don't agree with me.

It matters with whom you engage in "dialogue." Republicans (any at rate, many of them, and most of them in congress) do not engage in dialogue, but only in extremist and obstructionist politics, so why are you asking ME to engage in dialogue with THEM? The only point is to vote them out; that is obvious. You don't "dialogue" with a stone wall; if it's blocking your way, you remove it.

Again, what part of that do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So just for my own personal amusement a question for the folks who wake up in a cold sweat at night over the whole global warming thing: What concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will destroy the earth? How many parts per million are we talking about here before mankind shits the bed?

This article claims we are reaching the tipping point at 390 ppm. The safe upper limit is 350.

http://www.dailyplanetmedia.com/more...id=4877&mode=9


http://co2now.org/Future-CO2/Targets...-humanity.html

Originally Posted by James50

I have no side. I am trying to pass along stuff that I read that cast doubt on the models. Some of it would give an open minded person some reason to doubt. The left has made this into a political test. I don't think it has much to do with politics. My own view is slowly changing from someone who more or less believed in AGW and that it was harmful to someone who thinks the world is warming but probably not as fast as what the IPCC says and that it will not do the damage people say. I am not a fervent believer either way, but am trying to pay attention. I inherently mistrust consensus on complicated issues especially when it is promoted for political purposes.

James50

I look forward to you going in the right direction again.

The "political purposes" about this issue, is to deal with the issue.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, you are confounding different things again, rather than respond to my point. Just accusing someone of thinking they have all the right answers, instead of responding to his point, is not "dialogue" anyway.

We can't afford to "see what develops;" we need to participate to see that things develop better.

Almost nobody seems to "agree" with me here, and yet I am continuing to dialogue; so what's your point?

I even try to dialogue (up to a point) with the folks at Theology Online, so don't talk to me about dialogue-ing with people who don't agree with me.

It matters with whom you engage in "dialogue." Republicans (any at rate, many of them, and most of them in congress) do not engage in dialogue, but only in extremist and obstructionist politics, so why are you asking ME to engage in dialogue with THEM? The only point is to vote them out; that is obvious. You don't "dialogue" with a stone wall; if it's blocking your way, you remove it.

Again, what part of that do you not understand?

We at least agree that we cannot afford to wait. We have already waited too long. I don't agree that all the problems are from the Republicans, and at the national level both parties in Congress must be involved to make progress. The attitude that one side is responsible for all the problems is counterproductive in my opinion. I am not in favor of waiting -my comment on the ten years means that since we are not going to agree on the current status, then we can review the situation in ten years to see what actually happens.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We'd better "start," and "start" getting the "political" will to start; "non-starting" is not an option.

http://www.labeyondcoal.org/uploads/...11_-_final.pdf

I don't know how the above article stands in relation to the events you report above, but this analysis differs from those.

excerpt, page 13:

5. Conclusions
The analysis above demonstrates that under even the most conservative scenarios (a direct onefor-
one replacement of coal with gas), LADWP ratepayers will not be penalized for shedding coal
by 2020 instead of 2027. If LADWP targets efficiency as a serious, preferred resource rather than
a short-term requirement, the city can not only transition off of coal easily, but LADWP customers
will see a significant benefit in bills, relative to the plan put forward by the utility. An even more
aggressive move towards efficiency and renewable resources can position LADWP as a leading
utility in renewable energy and as a low-carbon leader, at even greater savings for the utility’s
customers.

Also see:

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
2010 Power Integrated Resources Plan Executive Summary

Utter crap.

The labeyondcoal is a Sierra Club offshoot that makes unsubstantiated claims about costs because they have a political agenda.

The LADWP documents are PROPOSALS, not actually plans.

My story comes right from one of the guys at LADWP who spoke at an industry conference held by the company for which I work. He was in the middle of the issues ON THE INSIDE.

Sorry, Eric, I have FIRST HAND information about LADWP doings. You can't post BS Sierra club crap. I have the FACTS.

Nice try. (actually, amateurish try...)

Originally Posted by radind

We at least agree that we cannot afford to wait. We have already waited too long. I don't agree that all the problems are from the Republicans, and at the national level both parties in Congress must be involved to make progress.

We don't have two parties that are interested in progress. It is often the case that we don't even have one party interested in progress.

The attitude that one side is responsible for all the problems is counterproductive in my opinion.

Reality check.

Today, one side's policies are entirely wrong; that is just a fact. Dialogue will not change their policies; they are stuck and determined. Anyone who has studied the situation knows that. Even David Brooks knows that. In a reasonably normal situation, of course negotiation and dialogue is the best way to proceed, and the only way to conduct modern government. But these are NOT normal times. An extreme faction has taken over the GOP lock stock and barrel for over 30 years now, and they get even more extreme every year. That situation is the chief trait of our current 4T. The Republicans ARE themselves THE CRISIS.

The only productive approach is to get the Republicans out of office; then at least you have a starting point-- not that the Democrats are always good; but Republicans are reliably bad. No one interested in progress will be able to work with them; they are not interested. They are only interested in regression. That will not change until severe electoral defeat causes them to realize their ideology and their policies have failed, and that they must change. Tough love is the only answer for them; they must reach bottom. They must reach a stage of acceptance that they have failed. Defeat them; THEN talk to them.

Now, if we had TWO moderate, reasonable parties like today's Democrats, normal government might be possible. But WE DON'T.

The only alternative to defeating these bullies? Give in to them. Allow them to impose complete trickle-down economics, religious intolerance, and military adventurism on our nation for the foreseeable future (and we won't have a future in that case).

Again, if you don't see that this is the situation in DC, you are not following the news.

I am not in favor of waiting -my comment on the ten years means that since we are not going to agree on the current status, then we can review the situation in ten years to see what actually happens.

Ok, I'm glad you are not in favor of waiting; but what actually happens will merely be the result of what we decide. Given our record, odds are that you are right, and progress will be inadequate. We will settle for lots of nuclear and fossil fuels in the next 10 years. But it need not be so; we can do much better, and waiting to see what happens will shed no light whatever on whether I am right or not.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Utter crap.

The labeyondcoal is a Sierra Club offshoot that makes unsubstantiated claims about costs because they have a political agenda.

The LADWP documents are PROPOSALS, not actually plans.

My story comes right from one of the guys at LADWP who spoke at an industry conference held by the company for which I work. He was in the middle of the issues ON THE INSIDE.

Sorry, Eric, I have FIRST HAND information about LADWP doings. You can't post BS Sierra club crap. I have the FACTS.

Nice try. (actually, amateurish try...)

So you are saying that these "proposals", publically posted recently by the LAWPD itself (not the Sierra Club), have been scrapped? According to "one of the guys," rather than the whole LAWPD?

Keep us posted. You might direct us to a website when they post their latest plans.

I will bet you they will keep up their plans for converting their energy sources, and meet their goals.

Of course the Sierra Club has an agenda. They want conversion to green energy, because they care about the environment. They are right; it's what we need to do.

Since today is Groundhog Day, are there any stats out there about whether the most prominent groundhogs; e.g., Punxsutawney Phil, have been seeing their shadows less often in recent years than previously?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We don't have two parties that are interested in progress. It is often the case that we don't even have one party interested in progress.

Reality check.

Today, one side's policies are entirely wrong; that is just a fact. Dialogue will not change their policies; they are stuck and determined. Anyone who has studied the situation knows that. Even David Brooks knows that. In a reasonably normal situation, of course negotiation and dialogue is the best way to proceed, and the only way to conduct modern government. But these are NOT normal times. An extreme faction has taken over the GOP lock stock and barrel for over 30 years now, and they get even more extreme every year. That situation is the chief trait of our current 4T. The Republicans ARE themselves THE CRISIS.

The only productive approach is to get the Republicans out of office; then at least you have a starting point-- not that the Democrats are always good; but Republicans are reliably bad. No one interested in progress will be able to work with them; they are not interested. They are only interested in regression. That will not change until severe electoral defeat causes them to realize their ideology and their policies have failed, and that they must change. Tough love is the only answer for them; they must reach bottom. They must reach a stage of acceptance that they have failed. Defeat them; THEN talk to them.

Now, if we had TWO moderate, reasonable parties like today's Democrats, normal government might be possible. But WE DON'T.

The only alternative to defeating these bullies? Give in to them. Allow them to impose complete trickle-down economics, religious intolerance, and military adventurism on our nation for the foreseeable future (and we won't have a future in that case).

Again, if you don't see that this is the situation in DC, you are not following the news.


Ok, I'm glad you are not in favor of waiting; but what actually happens will merely be the result of what we decide. Given our record, odds are that you are right, and progress will be inadequate. We will settle for lots of nuclear and fossil fuels in the next 10 years. But it need not be so; we can do much better, and waiting to see what happens will shed no light whatever on whether I am right or not.

I actually do follow the news, but we have different views on what is going on. Voting out one party is not a real option, so we need to find some way to deal with problems with the two parties.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Since today is Groundhog Day, are there any stats out there about whether the most prominent groundhogs; e.g., Punxsutawney Phil, have been seeing their shadows less often in recent years than previously?

I don't accept the verdict of a groundhog from back east on the weather to expect out here. I'll check and see if the prairie dogs are seeing their shadow today, thank you.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and accept that the probability of AGW is a coin toss, a cost benefit analysis still argues strongly for action now. Here are the choices:

1. BE PROACTIVE: Nothing we should do or even could do to mitigate AGW is something we don't have to do in any case (e.g. replace fossil fuels and lower energy consumption). Energy supplies need to be sustainable, and the current offerings aren't, at least for the most part. If addressing depletable energy source by developing non-depletable alternatives prevents runaway AGW, all the better. If nothing is needed to mitigate non-existent AGW, then nothing is lost.
2. DO NOTHING: On the other hand, if we decide that this is a hoax and do nothing, then we had better be right. Failure is not an option. If the models are right, we could trigger a massive decline in the world's forests, a collapse of the food supply and extreme weather all the time. The only upside, if that's what you choose to call it, would be a delayed cost of developing those non-depletable energy sources. Even at that, the delay is three or four decades at most.

Unless you are ideologically opposed to logic, this is a no-brainer ... even at 50/50 odds. Based solely on current trends, the odds are nowhere near that favorable.

Your false dilemma impresses no one. There are all manner of actual, important environmental issues on which we could spend our time and energy (which, unlike our range of choices, actually are limited). Things which actually are happening, which actually do matter, and which actually make a difference.

Or we could waste our energies and wealth sacrificing to appease the Model-Gods. As for me, I prefer any one of the former range of options.

Originally Posted by James50

I have no side. I am trying to pass along stuff that I read that cast doubt on the models. Some of it would give an open minded person some reason to doubt. The left has made this into a political test. I don't think it has much to do with politics. My own view is slowly changing from someone who more or less believed in AGW and that it was harmful to someone who thinks the world is warming but probably not as fast as what the IPCC says and that it will not do the damage people say. I am not a fervent believer either way, but am trying to pay attention. I inherently mistrust consensus on complicated issues especially when it is promoted for political purposes.

James50

OK, I can agree with that, but only on the theoretical level. We still have a policy conundrum: do we try to prevent this or not? I still argue that doing nothing is potentially tragic; doing something only gets us where we need to go anyway.

I saw a very strictly laid-out cost-benefit analysis (I looked for it, but I can't locate it now), and the point where doing nothing made sense required the odds that AGW is false to be virtually 100%. I don't think that even the most vigorous deniers are willing to make that case. All evidence that I've seen makes the case for something happening ... bad or worse.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So just for my own personal amusement a question for the folks who wake up in a cold sweat at night over the whole global warming thing: What concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will destroy the earth? How many parts per million are we talking about here before mankind shits the bed?

My take: no one knows for sure. Also my take: are you a gambler?