The Glade 4.0

Not only that, but every time a U.S. power company attempts to build a hydro-electric, wind, solar, or other "green, eco-friendly" plant, the greenniks come out in force and protest how it's going to destroy the local environment and drive the one-eared swamp newt of southern Mississippi into extinction.

So no, it is not a mischaracterization at all. The green movement does not want environmentally friendly anything. They want people to stop using technology outright.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I fixed it for you. HIGW has become a religion and like all religions it comes with the religious royalty assholes who think that their religion makes them morally superior to everyone else, and since they are morally superior, their own rules don't apply to them.

It very much is a mischaracterization in my experience. My job is to do the legal diligence and put together the contracts for power project financings, with about a 50/50 split between renewable and traditional fuel facilities. Over the last 5 years, I can only think of 3 renewable projects I worked on that ran into trouble with enviro groups - a ridgetop wind project in New England (bird impacts and new road construction), a run-of-river hydro project in New England (salmon runs) and a solar project in southern California (water use and ESA). All three projects went forward successfully, and none of them were significantly delayed. The solar project agreed to accommodations costing a couple million bucks (which was a tiny fraction of the project cost); the wind project convinced the enviro groups that the existing plan was adequate; and the hydro project won their dispute in court.

Per the video Slythe posted, global warming scares started in the 50's.

Trying to block a solar farm
http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2011/8/9 ... billi.html

Another California example. May be the same one.
http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/governm ... imits.html

Straight up NIMBY from the find folks in Cape Cod (may not qualify as Greens)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind#Controversy



http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... rgy-plans/

http://www.vjel.org/editorials/ED10038.html

http://www.akdart.com/enviro12.html

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Not to mention the paradox of people who want to lower carbon emissions being opposed to nuclear power.

You can't have it both ways... yes, there are some risks with nuclear power, but it's the only viable green energy source we have that produces enough reliable power to replace fossil fuel.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I've done a shit-ton of modeling (not climate related). Folks, I am sure, are developing new models, but the models in use are in the "calibration phase". The calcs are done, based on solid equations for what we know now, and we're simply seeing how well these models are panning out.

It doesn't mean it's bad science, it doesn't mean the modelers don't know what they are doing, it's simply the reality of modeling. You have established inputs to generate projected results (in this case, temperatures). If your results don't line up with measurements, you go back and try to figure out why, and calibrate your model. Perhaps there was too much emphasis on one year's worth of emissions, and that turned out to be on the high end. Or maybe you didn't take into account the Amazonian tree-frog that eats CO2 and poops ice.

It's a process. Question it, but don't discount it.

And yet, everyone cites the models when they speak of the coming catastrophe. If "the models" that are used to prop up the proclamations of doom are wrong, then the science used to attain those inputs is "bad".
What else to we have to show us how terrible it's going to be in 10 20 50 100 years but "the models"?
If I'm told that my car is projected to get 50mpg and in reality I get 30, yeah, I'm going to discount their claims.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Where can I obtain one of these?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I dunno if I want any frog-poop ice.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I'm for anything that works. Until those guys down the street invent the 16 cent hydrogen cell - and we get a few hundred million cars, trucks, planes, and gas stations converted- our future is going to include fossil fuel. With the average vehicle age going up, that's going to take a while.

compressed natural gas is greener and creating the stations is easier, but its still a fossil fuel, and you still have to change the fleet.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Thorium is where it's at.

First, "everyone" is typically political-motivated non-scientists. Typically. You should not hold "science" responsible for people taking results and running amok with them.

Now, understand - I have never created a predictive model that is correct. I'll go out on a limb and say nobody's created a predictive model that's correct. In fact, that's not even the goal. The goal of modeling is to prepare a set of calculations that explain the present and/or past (i.e. calibration) and use this basis to, based on a set of assumptions for future inputs, predict the future for a specific scenario within a certain range of accuracy.

The fact that a model is wrong does not make it bad science. Declaring it is correct makes you a bad scientist.

If you ask a good modeler a question like "do your results forecast death for all?", and they do, you won't get a "yes". You'll get a long explanation of the circumstances under which it appears to indicate high probability of, based on what we know, within this margin of error, with these assumptions, yada yada yada.

I stopped at Saronite. It just got too expensive.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Here's what bugs me about that article:

It claims that 97 percent of papers about climate change say its manmade and 54% of the readers surveyed say its not.. odd.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

for years the single most efficient power source (non- nuclear)when properly applied is diesel electric

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Sure is!!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Efficient in what sense?