TT, These International Panels are Killing Your Argument

#1
BigPapaVol

BigPapaVol

Wave yo hands in the aiya
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
63,223
Likes
15
#1
$45 trillion needed to combat warming - Yahoo! News

These looney tunes are saying that the world needs to invest $45 trillion over the next 40 years to get the world cooled down enough to satisfy them. OBTW, $27 trillion of that will be contributed by the developing nations.

Tenn Tradition, idiotic pronouncements of this nature cannot be helping the cause in any way, shape or form.
 
#3
#3
Global warming is a scam. I hate any politician that acknowledges it as a legitimate issue.
 
#6
#6
utvolpj said:
THE rig brother trucking toppa small administration does not believe in GW
Click to expand...
nicely played. you wearing your pimp suit yet, or waiting until November?

and I'm now cool with the nickname Riggie Smalls, just for ease of use in discussion.
 
#7
#7
This is odd, TT is usually right there any time global warming is the topic.
 
#8
#8
This is less idiotic than some pronouncements I've seen (such as Tornadoes being spawned by global warming). It isn't a bad thing to start talking $$ on this issue...it has to get out there, and then we have to decide what we are going to do about it. It doesn't help that numbers like these are thrown out without any discussion of the risk vs. reward of inaction vs. action.
 
#10
#10
KB5252 said:
This is odd, TT is usually right there any time global warming is the topic.
Click to expand...

TennTradition said:
This is less idiotic than some pronouncements I've seen (such as Tornadoes being spawned by global warming). It isn't a bad thing to start talking $$ on this issue...it has to get out there, and then we have to decide what we are going to do about it. It doesn't help that numbers like these are thrown out without any discussion of the risk vs. reward of inaction vs. action.
Click to expand...
:lol: You rang?
 
#12
#12
Does anyone see a connection with the fact that the French were involved with the report and nuclear was highly touted (while carbon capture and sequestration wasn't mentioned in the article, which will be an American approach). Maybe they feel that this is the only answer..but I can't help but think that it has something to do with their world-leading experience in nuclear reactors and fuel cycles.
 
#14
#14
TennTradition said:
Does anyone see a connection with the fact that the French were involved with the report and nuclear was highly touted (while carbon capture and sequestration wasn't mentioned in the article, which will be an American approach). Maybe they feel that this is the only answer..but I can't help but think that it has something to do with their world-leading experience in nuclear reactors and fuel cycles.
Click to expand...
Good for their pocket book?
 
#15
#15
KB5252 said:
I was about to send out a search party.:)
Click to expand...

It did take me almost 15 minutes..which is probably a record...with the exception of one of the comments made yesterday in another thread. I saw it a minute after it was made, but chose not to comment (even the stupid tire of their own drivel).
 
#16
#16
TennTradition said:
This is less idiotic than some pronouncements I've seen (such as Tornadoes being spawned by global warming). It isn't a bad thing to start talking $$ on this issue...it has to get out there, and then we have to decide what we are going to do about it. It doesn't help that numbers like these are thrown out without any discussion of the risk vs. reward of inaction vs. action.
Click to expand...
the shock value of a $45 trillion number works in exactly the opposite fashion than they wanted. I know they're signalling a dire emergency, but sure makes me want something more concrete than the info they're hanging their hats upon.

I can see Dr. Evil making the announcement while all the remainder being blackmailed just giggle.
 
#17
#17
KB5252 said:
Good for their pocket book?
Click to expand...

Sure. There's nothing wrong with that per se...it's business. If we are going to start building new power plants, you would want the world to build plants that you have a lot of experience making..that is, if you have a capitalist bone in your body.......but it can be forgotten either. There are other approaches...that's all I'm saying.
 
#18
#18
TennTradition said:
Sure. There's nothing wrong with that per se...it's business. If we are going to start building new power plants, you would want the world to build plants that you have a lot of experience making..that is, if you have a capitalist bone in your body.......but it can be forgotten either. There are other approaches...that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
surely you're not describing the French with that.
 
#19
#19
TennTradition said:
Does anyone see a connection with the fact that the French were involved with the report and nuclear was highly touted (while carbon capture and sequestration wasn't mentioned in the article, which will be an American approach). Maybe they feel that this is the only answer..but I can't help but think that it has something to do with their world-leading experience in nuclear reactors and fuel cycles.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about the viability of nuclear energy as an option? I feel like it was demonized a bit in the past and we should take a closer look at it.
 
#20
#20
vader said:
How do you feel about the viability of nuclear energy as an option? I feel like it was demonized a bit in the past and we should take a closer look at it.
Click to expand...

I agree. Chernobyl made nuclear power look like a risky venture. I did some reading into it and it seems as though it was completely avoidable if the appropriate action had been taken.
 
#21
#21
BigPapaVol said:
the shock value of a $45 trillion number works in exactly the opposite fashion than they wanted. I know they're signalling a dire emergency, but sure makes me want something more concrete than the info they're hanging their hats upon.

I can see Dr. Evil making the announcement while all the remainder being blackmailed just giggle.
Click to expand...

It's a big number. I went to a speech by Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern Report "fame") last year, and I think that I recall him saying something like it would cost about 1% of US GDP for us to make the investments necessary to reduce our emissions....

...I'm not sure if that is just the $$ value of the investment, or the total economic impact. We certainly have a lot of energy technology in the US...and energy investments would not be throwing money into a black hole. But, you can't just do it for the heck of it. These are huge $$ amounts. I wish this were an issue easier to prove...but I don't think that it is. We will continue relying on science-based modeling for a while....and the definitive answer will only come through measurements that are still a ways out.
 
#23
#23
TennTradition said:
It's a big number. I went to a speech by Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern Report "fame") last year, and I think that I recall him saying something like it would cost about 1% of US GDP for us to make the investments necessary to reduce our emissions....
Click to expand...
did Sir Nicholas hang his pinky in the corner of his mouth?
 
#24
#24
TennTradition said:
It's a big number. I went to a speech by Sir Nicholas Stern (of Stern Report "fame") last year, and I think that I recall him saying something like it would cost about 1% of US GDP for us to make the investments necessary to reduce our emissions....

...I'm not sure if that is just the $$ value of the investment, or the total economic impact. We certainly have a lot of energy technology in the US...and energy investments would not be throwing money into a black hole. But, you can't just do it for the heck of it. These are huge $$ amounts. I wish this were an issue easier to prove...but I don't think that it is. We will continue relying on science-based modeling for a while....and the definitive answer will only come through measurements that are still a ways out.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that statement. I just have a herd time with the hard liners that try to shove it down our throats while saying it is a demonstrated fact.
 
#25
#25
vader said:
How do you feel about the viability of nuclear energy as an option? I feel like it was demonized a bit in the past and we should take a closer look at it.
Click to expand...

I think that nuclear energy has a viable future, but has some issues that must be dealt with.

1) Public perception
2) Waste Processing/Storage
3) Nuclear security/proliferation

I think that issue number 2 is the most critical to the future of nuclear, and it is intimately tied with issue number 3. Nuclear is not the silver bullet...it is not sustainable, but it will do for a while. From an emissions and supply standpoint, it is an excellent "bridge" technology. However, from the standpoint of capital investment...we're talking serious step input of investment $$ over other technologies..which sort of weakens the "bridge."

In the end, I think that nuclear will see an increased share of the world's energy production. If clean coal can get some legs to stand on, then nuclear will be less important. If carbon capture and sequestration doesn't pan out, nuclear will be very important.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top