The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Transportation is 30% of primary energy. Light duty transportation is half of that at 15%. Mostly liquid fossil fuel. Transitioning all light transportation to electric would save 10% of the total primary energy.
.
.

.
.


.
You have done yourself a great disservice in not trying to understand what Hagens (and many others who have this greater understanding of the relationships between energy, population, economy, and psychology) are attempting to teach us. Hagens' lecture is essential for all humans to understand. And his free 1,000 page books will be out for download soon.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
The new movie which Nate co-wrote is out. It's content got quite disjointed from too many collaborators in the kitchen but there is some good information there. Especially the section on embodied energy.
.
Also. For any movie fans, the cinematography and editing and sound design is award winning.
.
Living In The Future's Past
.
https://www.amazon.com/Living-Future...27s+past&psc=1
.
.

I respectfully disagree with Hagens.
I'm sure that he's held in high esteem within the economics community,but he's no engineer,and I really feel that he qualifies for what Donald Rumsfeld remarked about,as someone who is unaware of unknown unknowns.
Hagen doesn't even know that he doesn't know about things which would impact his projections.
ONLY in the context of as things are,does his argument stand.
If he were more acquainted with US/World History,he'd already be aware that the 'loads' he represents,are not set in stone,and can be severely altered,overnight,with the stroke of a pen.
It would require someone who made more than a C-average grades,perhaps served in a combat theater,actually had an education,and was more willing to serve ,rather than coddle their own fragile ego.
Any carbon combustion that we can do without is a step in the right direction.It's too precious to waste 2/3rds of,every time we use it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

It's easy for "people" to say "just leave it in the ground" (the 100,000 protesting at the current world climate meeting in Poland) when they have no understanding of the relationship between energy/ economy/ population.
.
And then when "people" are faced with the economic hardship of forcing the market (carbon tax) to encourage just leaving it in the ground, you get the opposite protest.
.
A carbon tax, which I am for, is a tax on 90% of our (virtual) workers and will wreck the economy unless it is done with a progressive give back to the poor and middle class.

All the climatologists are saying,is don't burn it if you don't have to.
And as far as many activities go,done in the USA on a daily basis,these can be done without the combustion of fossil fuels,and powered with renewable energy sources.
Either we do this,or as as the near-term human extinction crowd advocates:
we just bring back Thalidomide, Red-Dye#2, Radium watch dials,polychlorinated biphenyls,cyclomates,drug store Heroin,Opium,put coca leaf back in Coca-Cola,etc.,and party 'til it ends.
90% of the workers can pull their heads out of the clouds,kill their television set,and learn how to live within their means.
Just Say No (to Madison Avenue).

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

ONLY in the context of as things are,does his argument stand.
If he were more acquainted with US/World History,he'd already be aware that the 'loads' he represents,are not set in stone,and can be severely altered,overnight,with the stroke of a pen.
.

These are not "his" loads. Anyone can find data on current energy consumption and future projections. Major countries of the world spend $billions to develop this data.
.
I'm very sorry that I cannot seem to help you understand that it is quite delusional to believe that we could just with the stroke of a pen, tell everyone in the world that starting tomorrow, they will be phased into full austerity.
.
I know it is very painful for most people to accept where we are concerning the scale of fossil energy and the dependence of the world growth based economy on it.. And various defense mechanisms such as denial will kick in. But I am hopeful that we can all learn to be pragmatic.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sendler

It's easy for "people" to say "just leave it in the ground" (the 100,000 protesting at the current world climate meeting in Poland) when they have no understanding of the relationship between energy/ economy/ population..

Useful idiot mafia strikes again.

What they are demanding is a reduction in lower and middle class standard of living for no net gain in saving the world.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

These are not "his" loads. Anyone can find data on current energy consumption and future projections. Major countries of the world spend $billions to develop this data.
.
I'm very sorry that I cannot seem to help you understand that it is quite delusional to believe that we could just with the stroke of a pen, tell everyone in the world that starting tomorrow, they will be phased into full austerity.
.
I know it is very painful for most people to accept where we are concerning the scale of fossil energy and the dependence of the world growth based economy on it.. And various defense mechanisms such as denial will kick in. But I am hopeful that we can all learn to be pragmatic.

*These energy flows have been available from the Energy Information Agency,and included in each issue of the World Almanac since before dirt.
They reflect what is,not what could be.It is contextual.
* I fully understand what they publish,and I also know enough about technology to know that what they represent is 'elastic'. given the potential for certain 'catalyzing' events.There is ample evidence that many US family bloodlines have selected against perspicacity,and are genetically incapable of dot connection,and critical thinking.Shame.
*There exist,extant, prima facie evidence which highly illustrate that these very energy flow paths CAN be altered,overnight,with the stroke of a pen.If public education in the United States had provided education to generations of students,rather than just groom them to enter industry.at no cost to industry,these former students would already know how flexible these energy paths can be.There's nothing dilusional about any of it.
*It's a absolute joy to know that we can walk away from plofligate waste,and send the second law of thermodynamics packing!Nineteen-year veteran coal miners in Pikesville,Kentucky know the coal jobs aren't coming back,so they're already training for the jobs that WILL be there.It will be that way across the entire economic landscape.They're going to repair the automation equipment which threatens their blue-collar jobs.Whatever else shows up.And we should help in any way.
*People who've retained perspicacity in their bloodlines are moving on.There's no lamenting the decline of combustion,only optimism for a more stable,safe,and healthy future sans tailpipe emissions.The pragmatic thing is to walk away from combustion as fast as we can,with zero nostalgia for a time that nearly wrecked an entire planet.What a legacy.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Useful idiot mafia strikes again.

What they are demanding is a reduction in lower and middle class standard of living for no net gain in saving the world.

I struggle to find coherence in your line of thinking.
What importance could a standard of living have,when we're discussing the habitability of an entire planet?
And if I can do the same thing with zero carbon emissions,where's the foul?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I struggle to find coherence in your line of thinking.
What importance could a standard of living have,when we're discussing the habitability of an entire planet?
And if I can do the same thing with zero carbon emissions,where's the foul?

People going hungry, cold, over all general increase in suffering.
It's been proven over and over there is no way to power society with out carbon fuel.

But I'm fairly certain the powers in charge have zero interest in saving the world. Otherwise they would be replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel recycling.
Not forcing the proletariat to use a little less.

The believers think that the answer to saving the world lies in big government forcing change at the bottom.
That's how a fascist or communist accomplishes things and it usually never works.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

People going hungry, cold, over all general increase in suffering.
It's been proven over and over there is no way to power society with out carbon fuel.

But I'm fairly certain the powers in charge have zero interest in saving the world. Otherwise they would be replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel recycling.
Not forcing the proletariat to use a little less.

The believers think that the answer to saving the world lies in big government forcing change at the bottom.
That's how a fascist or communist accomplishes things and it usually never works.

*According to fake news,millions of Americans go to bed hungry every night,in spite of all the fossil-fueled energy available.
*Can you cite at least two instances in which any modern society has attempted to divorce itself from fossil fuel other than in 'Atlas Shrugged'?
'Over and over' implies at least two attempts.
*It's glaringly obvious,at least in the United States,that the administration currently in charge,has virtually zero interest in saving the world.
In 2016,natural gas overtook coal as the primary fuel source for electrical power generation.I can't say anything about the current Nuclear power situation.The media isn't saying anything.
*As to the proletariat,where I live,the utilities offer free home energy audits,and direct economic incentives to those consumers who upgrade their homes and appliances to Energy Star-rated or net-zero technology.
If that's 'forcing',then I'm all for 'forcing.'
*Wait until you see what a day without big government looks like.
*And historically,the fascists couldn't have had much success if the capitalists hadn't provided the 500-tons of tetra-ethyl lead,and refueled the U-Boats even after war was declared.And left their factories for Blitz truck and bomber production.

[aerostealth]

It is funny how when the price of gas goes up because the market raises the price no one rots, but if the government raises the price on carbon people do? I will grant you people need assistance transitioning away from carbon emissions but we need to do it. Given a choice between wrecking the economy or wrecking the planet we will end up wrecking both if we choose only economics.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Not forcing the proletariat to use a little less.

The believers think that the answer to saving the world lies in big government forcing change at the bottom.
That's how a fascist or communist accomplishes things and it usually never works.

The premise of R. B. Fuller's Design Science Revolution was that tearing down the top always fails, but engineered solutions can raise the standard of living for all so nobody has to lose. The richest person on the planet didn't have a computer in their pocket a hundred years ago, now everybody does.

Originally Posted by aerohead

I did this voluntarily in 1974 and it's paid me tax-free dividends ever since.

What I did was about housing. Built this on the Oregon coast in 1980:


Did I mention that when the wind blew 100mph, it didn't whistle or moan? Quiet as a Mercedes at 100mph.

edit:
Ha!
zerohedge.com:Socialist Ocasio-Cortez Slams Musk And Tesla For Not Providing A "Return On Investment" To Taxpayers

"When we as a public choose to invest in new technologies, we deserve a return on that investment" she said.

She continued: "For far too long, we gave money to Tesla, we gave money to a ton of people and we got no return on our investment that the public made in creating technologies, and it’s about time we get our due because it’s the public that funded and financed a lot of innovative technologies." One wonders what she would say about Solyndra, assuming she has even heard of the "revolutionary" and now defunct company.