A swing of opinion on Global Warming in America?

[Skybird]

With 70 percent of Americans now agreeing that global warming is affecting weather in the U.S., the public is showing increasing support for measures (http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Six-Americas-March-2012/)that would tackle the problem of climate change, according to a new survey. Conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, the survey showed that 60 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports legislation that would reduce the federal income tax and make up for that decrease in revenue by increasing taxes on fossil fuels. The ongoing survey — which divides the U.S. public into six categories on global warming, from the alarmed to the dismissive — showed that an overwhelming majority of people who identified themselves as alarmed, concerned, or cautious about global warming say that if people with their views worked together, they could influence politicians’ views on global warming. The people in these three groups, as well as people who described themselves as disengaged on the issue of global warming, said by a wide margin that they trusted President Obama more than Mitt Romney as a source of information on climate change. Only people who described themselves as dismissive of human-caused climate change said they trusted Romney more than Obama on the issue, the Yale survey showed.


http://e360.yale.edu/digest/increase_in_extreme_weather__influencing_opinion_o n_climate_change/3552/

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Six-Americas-March-2012/

Original paper, full length, graphs and tables:
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Six-Americas-March-2012.pdf

[August]

Yet again Skybird wants to tell us what we are thinking.

[troopie]

Wow, there's a bit of an enviro theme going on tonite. Almost makes you think there's a glint of hope out there!

On the first of July '12 our (Australian) Government committed political suicide and took the brave move of introducing a 'carbon tax'. They most likely won't be returned to office at the next election and the victorious opposing party will no doubt repeal the tax.

Regardless of this, I can't help but feel a sense of patriotic pride and a fleeting glimpse of a previously unkown level of trust in the Government.

To be amongst the leading countries prepared to take a first step in tackling this issue is incredible. No, the tax will not be perfect and yes there will be major setbacks. Fair chance some demographics will be worse off and (heaven forbid) some big companies may even loose out.

It may fall in a big steaming heap, and be a total failure, but you can't learn if you don't make mistakes! Someone has to give it a go!

That we had the kegs to do it, and make some sacrifices, which will provide a reference point for other countries to learn from in the future makes me really feel proud.

It's only a very small step, but in the scheme of things, it may have a big flow on effect.

[AVGWarhawk]

What I don't understand is Al Gore who was leading the charge has seemingly disappeared from the face of global warming. :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

With 70 percent of Americans now agreeing

You lost me there. I have a hard time believing that 70% of us could agree on anything that touch's on economy or politics, which global warming certainly does. The only time we'd have that high a percentage on an issue like that, is when pigs fly, angels sing, and the apocolypse has come.

[Oberon]

What I don't understand is Al Gore who was leading the charge has seemingly disappeared from the face of global warming. :hmmm:

Perhaps he melted? :hmmm:

[August]

What I don't understand is Al Gore who was leading the charge has seemingly disappeared from the face of global warming. :hmmm:

It became known that he had a financial interest in carbon trading companies and that he used more electricity at his house than most small towns so rather than continue to be seen as a hypocrite he stepped out of the limelight.

[Tribesman]

You lost me there. I have a hard time believing that 70% of us could agree on anything that touch's on economy or politics, which global warming certainly does.
It is such a broad range of different categories and different opinions all bundled into one its pretty easy to string out the numbers 70%

As for the swing to 70%??????
4 years ago they had the 70% the new survey gives 69%, doesn't that mean that the swing isn't much of a swing at all and the increase is actually a decrease.

Then again I did read that a survey is empirical evidence and is not open to interpretation as it only can mean one thing:rotfl2:

[Skybird]

You lost me there. I have a hard time believing that 70% of us could agree on anything that touch's on economy or politics, which global warming certainly does. The only time we'd have that high a percentage on an issue like that, is when pigs fly, angels sing, and the apocolypse has come.
I have lost neither you nor anyone else, because I did not claim anything.

The important part is the third link, the original document, in full length.

And from that, page 66ff: methodology.


Methodology
These results come from nationally representative surveys of American adults, aged 18 and older. The samples were weighted to correspond
with U.S. Census Bureau parameters for the United States.
The surveys were designed by Anthony Leiserowitz, Nicholas Smith and Jay Hmielowski of Yale University, and by Edward Maibach and Connie
Roser-Renouf of George Mason University, and were conducted by Knowledge Networks, using an online research panel of American adults.
June 2010: Fielded May 14 through June 1 with 1,024 American adults.
January 2010: Fielded December 24, 2009 through January 3, 2010 with 1,001 American adults.
May 2011: Fielded April 23rd through May 12th with 981 American adults.
March 2012: Fielded March 12th through March 30th with 1,008 American adults.
The six audience segments were first identified in analyses of the 2008 data set. Latent Class Analysis was used to segment respondents, based
on 36 variables representing four distinct constructs: global warming beliefs, issue involvement, policy preferences and behaviors. Discriminant
functions derived from the latent class analysis were used with the 2012, 2011 and 2010 data sets to replicate the earlier analysis and identify
changes in the groups.
The survey results from March 2012 and November 2011 have been combined in this report, rather than released separately at the time the data
were gathered, due to circumstances beyond our control that slowed the segmentation analysis of the November data.


You have better information on the lacking representative value of their data pool? I'm listening. They say they made sure their samples are representative for the demographic structure of American population, such procedures are academic standards to ensure the sample taken indeed is representative for the whole population that gets described by the sample. Show that theis claim is wrong.

Next step: go thorugh the document and show why and where their reported answer patterns are wrong, and erratically listed.

Or do you mean the whole thing is just forged and faked? You then can file a charge at or against two of your universities: Yale, and George Mason. If they are serious with their reputation they will be glad to get evidence for people working in their name and in their institutes compromising their name and reputation by forging results and data sets. To what degree this is also a criminal offence under legal penalty in the US, I donot know. In Germany, such betrayal can serve you high financial penalties.

[Takeda Shingen]

An interesting take on these so-called facts:


These generalizations are based on a series of Yale University studies over the last few years. According to the studies, Americans' belief in global warming fell from 71 percent in November 2008 to just 57 percent in January 2010, but it rebounded to 66 percent by this spring. The findings mirrored those of the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change, which showed belief in global warming bouncing from 65 percent in 2009 to 52 percent in 2010 and back up to 62 percent this year.
What accounts for the rebound? It isn't the economy, which has thawed only a little. And it doesn't seem to be science: The share of respondents to the Yale survey who believe "most scientists think global warming is happening" is stuck at 35 percent, down from 48 percent four years ago. (That statement remains just as true now as it was then: It's the public, not the scientists, that keeps changing its mind.)
No, our resurgent belief in global warming seems to be a function of the weather. A separate Yale survey this spring found that 82 percent of Americans had personally experienced extreme weather or natural disasters in the past year. And 52 percent said they believed the weather had been getting worse overall in recent years, compared to just 22 percent who thought it had gotten better.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents in that March poll went on to say that they believed global warming was affecting the weather in the United States. And that was before the Colorado wildfires and the most recent wave of storms and heat in the Midwest and Northeast, which have brought renewed media attention to climate change. The number might well top 70 percent today.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-15/news/32675533_1_global-warming-extreme-weather-climate-change

In other words, every time the weather warms, or there is a drought, or an ice storm, or a wildfire, or a blizzard, or a heat wave, people start talking about it being global warming. This is why those numbers seem to be in constant flux. This 'paper' only gives a snapshot of this opinion at a high point, and does so to make a political statement, making it disingenuous at best.

Back when we were having those nasty winters a few years ago, no one was talking about that. Of course, we are also in an El Nino cycle, which gives us warmer, dryer weather in my part of the country. I imagine that this would not be the first time that people got hysterical about things, and I know that it is not the first time that Skybird has been caught up in it.

[artao]

surveys only show the results of those surveyed. i don't care HOW statisticians "weight" their surveys. everyone knows that 99% of statistics can be used to show whatever you want.
global climate change is now the preferred term, because some folks don't understand that global warming doesn't actually mean it gets warmer where they live.
anthropogenic climate change has become undeniable, except by those with a vested interest int the current energy system and those who blindly listen to them.

[Skybird]

An interesting take on these so-called facts:



http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-15/news/32675533_1_global-warming-extreme-weather-climate-change

In other words, every time the weather warms, or there is a drought, or an ice storm, or a wildfire, or a blizzard, or a heat wave, people start talking about it being global warming. This is why those numbers seem to be in constant flux. This 'paper' only gives a snapshot of this opinion at a high point, and does so to make a political statement, making it disingenuous at best.

Back when we were having those nasty winters a few years ago, no one was talking about that. Of course, we are also in an El Nino cycle, which gives us warmer, dryer weather in my part of the country. I imagine that this would not be the first time that people got hysterical about things, and I know that it is not the first time that Skybird has been caught up in it.
Too kind, thank you. You might find it interesting that I found myself in need to alter my opinions a bit, and in some thread I indicated that, three or four moths ago. I had to realise that the money-interest by the third world plays an important role in painting the picture as dramatic as possible, so to get more money transfers from the North, and that sun cycle effects maybe play a greater role than previously taken into account. But I also think that this earlier ignoring of sun cycles is coming from the so-called sceptics' propaganda having been so abusive in misquoting, quoting out of context, constructing totally different material into one strawman argument, that in this noise the solid part of the sun cycle argument got lost and ignored, since it appeared to be just the sceptics' propaganda for too long, and thus was discredited. I still think the planet is warming up, but I realise that the sun causes more prominent microfluctuations in global climate trends and maybe buys some time for us, than previously assumed. Last summer was cold and wet over here, this one is as well, but on a global scale, the weather extremes have increased in frequency and intensity, which is pretty much according to the predictions of global warming models. Greenland is unfreezing quicker than ever, the oceans warm up as well, and warmth-related chemical changes are to be observed, too.

However, the Philly article is way too short and superficial as if I would make it a basis of questioning the results alltogether. The argument of that article would need to become object of empirical examination itself.

We may have won some time in which we can adapt, but I think what it all means is that at the end the final rise in temperature will come even sharper and more drastic, if we do not get ready to cope with that.

On surveys, what is being done if they should fulfill the criterion of being representative for a population, is to make sure that the sample offers demographic represenation, and is big enough in size to minimise the margin of error (= that sample's findings are not meaning anything, but are by pure chance, by randomness, by luck) is not exceeding a certain level, which usually is set at 5%, 3% or 1%. In experimental settings, these error margins often are set even lower, for example 0.5, 0.25 or 0.05%. This is what separates a poll from a representative survey: the poll is just a random snapshot that can but must not be representative at all, since one does not care for the structure of the sample. The representative survey uses statistical calculations to determine how big a sample must be at minimum to bring down the margin error to this or that wanted level. This gets calculated by formulas, it is no random or arbitrary process. You cannot do a representative survey with too small a sample, therefore. The trustworthiness becomes the bigger the greater the sample is, but beyond a certain level, the additonal gain slows down, and from some point on it is not economic to increase the sample size anymore.

On the Philly article, they may have a point. It'S not that I studied those 60 pages so much in depth that I have every detail on my mind. A relation between weather at the time of the questioning, and given answers, would not be that surprising. We know according links between psychic state and mood, and season/light/weather.

[Tchocky]

AL GORE AL GORE

[Ducimus]

I have lost neither you nor anyone else, because I did not claim anything.

The important part is the third link, the original document, in full length.

And from that, page 66ff: methodology.



You have better information on the lacking representative value of their data pool? I'm listening.

My statement was more of a sarcastic commentary of how polarized the American people have become on the political and economic landscape. We as a people can't agree on anything anymore, with left and right wing politico's pulling everyone one way or the other with nothing in between. For every left wing tree hugger screaming global warming, they'll be a right wing nut job screaming it's all a lie.

[artao]

Antrhopogenic Global Climate Change is not an "opinion", it is a fact. The only remaining question is exactly how much influence mankind has had in it. There is NO DOUBT AT ALL that we are indeed part of the cause however.
El Nino/El Nina. right. how many years now are those to be blamed? sure are turning out to be some long cycles there.
Crazy winters and crazy summers and crazy storms and crazy droughts .. ALL OF THEM are due to global climate change to some degree. One can not point to any specific event and say "this was global climate change". It doesn't work that way. One CAN however point to the overall trend in weather events and say, with confidence, this has been global climate change.
I just read an article the other day where researchers (actual climatologists, published in Nature) are saying WE CAN NO LONGER STOP THE RISE IN SEA LEVEL FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. :nope: ... and that's even IF we take the most extreme, drastic measures to reverse global climate change.
"Follow the money" clearly, and always has, traced back to the current energy syndicate making less profit. Not losing money, mind you; simply less profit. they still make money, just not as much.
Global Climate Change is not a political OR economic thing. It has been politicized and economized. Global Climate Change itself is purely science. And the science is now completely undeniable. Period.

[AVGWarhawk]

The only remaining question is exactly how much influence mankind has had in it. There is NO DOUBT AT ALL that we are indeed part of the cause however.

We have some influence certainly but overall the earth is going through it's cycles we do not understand.

[artao]

No. Actually it's quite clear that the situation we're in started around the time of the Industrial Revolution. That evidence is unassailable.
The Earth has its natural cycles, yes. The cycles are balanced. It doesn't take much to throw off the natural cycles. It's a fine balance. We have clearly done so. How bad? Bad. Not completely sure how bad, but definitely bad.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agreed with you artao. :) It is a host of causes. Some created and some natural.

[Skybird]

We have some influence certainly but overall the earth is going through it's cycles we do not understand.
But if we do not understand it, we cannot say that is is going thorugh its cycles. We do not know, then.

But some thiungs are clear right in this moment. While in Europe and Germany, the harvest in many regions is threatened by too much water and too low temperatures, 1300 counties in the US are quoted by Die Welt as being currently declared as disastere areas due to extreme droughs where the harvets may reach just one quarter of the normal levels in a "normal" year, 55% of the US territory are declared as being haunted by strong or extreme drough, the biggest iceberg ever has just broken off Greenland, and stockmarket prices for soy have topped the record prices from 2008 due to global droughs this year, with corn primising to topple the old record mark soon, too.

And a subjective observation by me. I have no car, all distance travelling I do by bicycle. Last year, I did less biking thanbefore, due to strong winds all summer long. I live here since twelkve years now, never was it like that, so nerve-killing windy. This year, it is even worse, I so far have cancelled all planned longer-range tours I usually do at this time of the year. The wind is nerve-killing - day for day for day. I swear one month'S budget that the wind acitivty in this part of the land has drmataiucally increase din the past two years. Not just on some days. On almost every day throughout spring, summer and autumn anyway. My parents say so. My friends say so. People in my house say so. Others say so.

Layman in me says: more energy in the atmosphere, more thermal activity therefore. Whatever, it kills any interest in doing bicycle tours.

[AVGWarhawk]

But if we do not understand it, we cannot say that is is going thorugh its cycles. We do not know, then.

Ok, we don't fullyunderstand but we recognize there are cycles.

[artao]

i should just log off for the day. clearly i'm very irritable, and possibly even irrational.
:D:oops:

[Betonov]

i should just log off for the day. clearly i'm very irritable, and possibly even irrational.
:D:oops:

In short, welcome to GT


I'm staying quiet on this one. Somehow I think that global warming is another overhyped media and political scam, but these last few years there were some weather extremes that my parents never witnessed. But then again, my grandparents did. Not enough to convince me in either direction.

[August]

In short, welcome to GT


I'm staying quiet on this one. Somehow I think that global warming is another overhyped media and political scam, but these last few years there were some weather extremes that my parents never witnessed. But then again, my grandparents did. Not enough to convince me in either direction.

This is my opinion also. Well said.

[Skybird]

It seems it is not just a swing of mood and opinion on GW, but also a swing in energy mix in the US, or better: some kind of an energy revolution:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7090

I did not find it again, but some days ago I had another article that listed a comparison of emissions - and here the US again scores very good, better than many Euzropeans are aware off. The dreamdancing Eurocratic emission trading scheme does not work at all, is even counterprpoductive,m and CO2 emission sin the EU and in germany actually went up, The article showed that in the US, they are going down, which only partially is to be attributed to the desolate economic situation.

It is absolutely possible that Europeans have to realise that although the US is still loved to be bashed for its energy and emission policies - it probably has taken the lead over Europe and makes progress in these regards, where europe acutally fails to score improvements - another case of European jaw stiffness after having opened the mouth too wide over energy and emission targets.

I try again to find that article, since it was from an apparently solid scientific journal, not just some fake-scientific propaganda essay at some lobby-website of which there are so many.

[artao]

oh no no no no no no no no people
Global Climate Change (aka Global Warming, but most people misunderstand
that term) is NOT some "political" thing.

It.
Is.
Pure.
Science.

You can look at the data yourself and see, clearly, the trends over the last several hundred years at least. It is also completely clear that the average global temperature has been rising (thus Global Warming. it's the averaged global temperature, and only 1 or 2 degrees celcius can have drastic consequences) ever since the Industrial Revolution. It accelerated as more countries got industrialized.
That data is undeniable.
Blaming it on El Nina/Nino, the sun, volcanoes (seriously, I've read that), etc just doesn't work when you look at the overall data.
Heck!!!! Deniers have gone so far now that, now that Global Climate Change is completely undeniable .. they've gone so far as to actually suggest that it's "good for the planet".
Insane arse bungs.

You know what? We ALL (me too) need to change our energy habits. Yes, it is going to hurt and it's going to cost money.

The alternative is the potential extinction of the human race. That is an extreme result; but considering the general reaction to this SOLID SCIENCE, that would not surprise me in the least.

As I said earlier, there was a recent study, published in Nature (the de-facto science journal) that says WE CAN NOT STOP THE RISE IN OCEAN LEVELS FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. even "IF" we take the most extreme drastic measures right now.

People who deny Global Climate Change are harming humanity. ... frankly, i'm no longer sure that's a bad thing. maybe we NEED an extinction level event to sober us up.

EDIT: to me, people who deny antrhopogenic global climate change are exactly akin to people who insist on creationism being taught alongside evolution in science classes. I will NOT stand for it, and neither will Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[AVGWarhawk]

maybe we NEED an extinction level event to sober us up.
Who's going first? :hmmm:

Over the centuries war has handled much of the population issues.

EDIT: to me, people who deny antrhopogenic global climate change are exactly akin to people who insist on creationism being taught alongside evolution in science classes. I will NOT stand for it, and neither will Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

So believing everything once told and any other line of thought is irrelevant?

[August]

I don't think anyone argues that the world isn't warming, just to what degree, if any, humans are affecting that change.

The way I see it it doesn't matter. Because if we are no amount of federal programs, regulations, taxes, penalties and/or initiatives are ever going to make a difference because they won't be applied across the globe and nobody is going to willingly lower their standard of living unless that burden is shared equally.

The only realistic way we as a race can stop affecting the global climate, if we are, is to die off in large numbers and we're certainly not going to do that by choice.

[Takeda Shingen]

EDIT: to me, people who deny antrhopogenic global climate change are exactly akin to people who insist on creationism being taught alongside evolution in science classes. I will NOT stand for it, and neither will Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The more I read statements like this, the more I start to think that Neil deGrasse Tyson has become an A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada type figure to the certain elements of society. It has become religious adoration, or at least something very close to it.

[MH]

I don't think anyone argues that the world isn't warming, just to what degree, if any, humans are affecting that change.

The way I see it it doesn't matter. Because if we are no amount of federal programs, regulations, taxes, penalties and/or initiatives are ever going to make a difference because they won't be applied across the globe and nobody is going to willingly lower their standard of living unless that burden is shared equally.

The only realistic way we as a race can stop affecting the global climate, if we are, is to die off in large numbers and we're certainly not going to do that by choice.

Yet switching into alternative energies and technologies can benefit us all at the end.
Just switching to electric cars should make the cites much more pleasant places.
Who really needs 4x4 4.5l vehicle to drive to the office.

[August]

Yet switching into alternative energies and technologies can benefit us all at the end.
Just switching to electric cars should make the cites much more pleasant places.
Who really needs 4x4 4.5l vehicle to drive to the office.

I guess the answer to that question is where is the office and what quality of road do you need to drive over to get there? To a lumberjack the back woods is the office and it's the end of long muddy dirt road. You want to tell him or any number of rural and/or tradespeople between that extreme and yours that they don't need their 4x4's? :) Not me!

I hear enough bitching from those folks every time I go up to Maine where everyone has a truck, most with ATV's or snowmobiles stuck in the back and they need them not always but often enough to be worth hauling it around. Many of them look at government initiatives to force people into these little hybrid pod cars as yet another example of city folks pushing their city ways to the detriment of rural people.

[troopie]

I guess the answer to that question is where is the office and what quality of road do you need to drive over to get there? To a lumberjack the back woods is the office and it's the end of long muddy dirt road. You want to tell him or any number of rural and/or tradespeople between that extreme and yours that they don't need their 4x4's? :) Not me!

I hear enough bitching from those folks every time I go up to Maine where everyone has a truck, most with ATV's or snowmobiles stuck in the back and they need them not always but often enough to be worth hauling it around. Many of them look at government initiatives to force people into these little hybrid pod cars as yet another example of city folks pushing their city ways to the detriment of rural people.


I think what MH means is that while plenty of people need large 4x4's the majority do not.

In Australia at least, nobody begrudges rural/regonal users of large fourbies but their is an increasing trend towards city dwellers using them becuase they are perseived as safe and due to their size and expense have become a status symbol. Many are now marketed as luxury vehicles.

If you never leave the bitumen do you really need a Fourby?

[August]

If you never leave the bitumen do you really need a Fourby?

Of course not, but in a free society who has the right to tell another man he can't have one?

I mean sure we can do things like raise gas taxes to encourage the urbanites to give up their Escallades and Hummers butI seriously doubt any person who can afford one of these luxury SUV's is going to care what the cost of a gallon of gas is. On the other hand it really puts the hurt on the poor and rural folks who can't afford being "encouraged" like that.

[MH]

Of course not, but in a free society who has the right to tell another man he can't have one?

I mean sure we can do things like raise gas taxes to encourage the urbanites to give up their Escallades and Hummers butI seriously doubt any person who can afford one of these luxury SUV's is going to care what the cost of a gallon of gas is. On the other hand it really puts the hurt on the poor and rural folks who can't afford being "encouraged" like that.

http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/bcharging.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2010/04/22499hda7c143b1-copy.jpg (http://green.autoblog.com/photos/renault-fluence-z-e/)


The technology is around the corner.
People just need to change the attitude a bit.
In terms of efficiency electric engine might be what jet engine was to airplanes.
The batteries need to get a bit cheaper but are good enough to drive to work in city radius for sure.

[August]

The technology is around the corner.
People just need to change the attitude a bit.
In terms of efficiency electric engine might be what jet engine was to airplanes.
The batteries need to get a bit cheaper but are good enough to drive to work in city radius for sure.


But again city radius does not apply to rural areas. It doesn't even apply to a fair number of our suburbs. I'm not against electric technology, it just at this point isn't really a valid option for anyone but urban dwellers.

[Betonov]

it just at this point isn't really a valid option for anyone but urban dwellers.

True, but If you get city folk to use electrics inside city limits you already halfed the gasoline consumption (but doubled the power consumption from the grid)

[August]

True, but If you get city folk to use electrics inside city limits you already halfed the gasoline consumption (but doubled the power consumption from the grid)

If you can get them to cooperate then sure. My point is schemes to force compliance (ie gas taxes, mileage taxes, etc) usually hurt the rural folks a lot more than it affects city dwellers.

[Sailor Steve]

(but doubled the power consumption from the grid)
And there's another problem. Where I live the power grid is itself powered by a fossil fuel (coal). Also, unless your utilities come with the rent what you make up in savings on gasoline you end up paying in extra electricity. Then if everybody is driving an electric car how big a drain does it become on the citywide grid? What if there's not enough?

On real solution would be to ban motorized personal transportation altogether in urban areas and make everyone either ride a bicycle or use public transit. But that opens up its own can of worms. Some jobs aren't convenient to bus lines, and where I live the buses don't run all night, so the job I used to have to start at three in the morning would be right out.

There is no simple solution.

[Skybird]

Even many environmentalists admit that electric cars currently are no reasonable option. they are too expensive, the batteries usually still are too weak, the network of refuiling stations is too thin, and the electric power that should be used still must be produced in the way it currently gets done.

A power infrastrutcure cannot be changed so easily. Study the German example carefully with all that maximum political attempt behind it, the heavy and expensive subsidies thta make it so expensive for the consumer - the totally flawed design. We have the absurd situation in Germany that the more renewable, heavily subsidised power gets produced on a sunny day, the more expensive it becomes. It is true. It gets caused by a totally misled, ill design of how they tried to push the use of renewables. The more sunny days we have, the more photovoltaic electricity gets produced, the more fees and subsidies gets payed to the producers, the more the kWH costs. the more conventionel powerplants must be shut down to prevent the powergrid from bursting. Which leads to dangerous fluctuations in that grid. Which means conventional capacities not being used, so that investing into them does become unprofitable. So that no investement takes place. So that no stabilising of the energy supply takes place.

The only thing that currently speaks for elexctric cars, is maintenance. They need much less, and are much less vulnerable to defects, wear and tear, and the motors are much less vulnerable to technical breakdowns and mechanical problems, German statistics prove.

In German: on how porked the German renewable strategy is:

http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/merkels-energiewende-extrem-teuer-aber-direkt-in-die-sackgasse/007953/ (http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/merkels-energiewende-extrem-teuer-aber-direkt-in-die-sackgasse/007953/)

It also describes how these plans lead towards a planned state economy.

Currently, and for the forseeable time, I would not want an electric car. Not even as a present and for free. and on the green electgric car: it is only as green as the energy is by which it runs. Plus the total energy cost for just producing the batteries.

And there is a longterm problem: Lithium. There are only three places in the world (last time read about it, which is some years ago) where Lithium can be mined. The reserves are limited, to such a degree that if you compare them to a projection of how much would be needed if all the EU's and environmentalists' visions for an electric future (basing on Lithium-Ion batteries) should be realised, you end up with a very very big deficit. In other words: we either develope different battery types, or we run out of Lithium long before our visions become true.

Such perspectives do at least not serve as incentives.

So, even for an electriuc concepot of the future, there are neithe rshortcuts nor easy solutions. Main problems remain to be too high energy demand by too many people.

[troopie]

So, even for an electriuc concepot of the future, there are neithe rshortcuts nor easy solutions. Main problems remain to be too high energy demand by too many people.

Touche'

Enter: Thomas Malthus.

Don't be too hard on your government Skybird, at least they had the courage to try something, someone has to. Maybe your people could be proud they are making a small sacrifice to help the world. The scheme may not have worked too well but you are leading the way for other countries to learn from your mistakes. A very noble thing in my opinion as it would nodoubt have made the ruling party rather unpopular. Its much like our 'Carbon tax' (see post #2)

[Skybird]

Touche'

Enter: Thomas Malthus.

Don't be too hard on your government Skybird, at least they had the courage to try something, someone has to. Maybe your people could be proud they are making a small sacrifice to help the world. The scheme may not have worked too well but you are leading the way for other countries to learn from your mistakes. A very noble thing in my opinion as it would nodoubt have made the ruling party rather unpopular. Its much like our 'Carbon tax' (see post #2)

I hope we do not lead the way! It would be ruinous for others as well! You need to know maybe how this energy-revolutionin Germany was caused. First there was the trading scheme for emission certifications set up by the EU. That one never worked as intended, but quite directly acchieved the opposite effect, then showed to become completely useless. Then- and here begins the German story - there was Fukushima, and because Germans went into hystery mode over a disaster that until today, as far as I know, still has not killed one person by radiation and the emission of nuclear material into the ocean still has not caused any problems, Germany concluded that we have to do something about nuclear powerplants - in Germany, far away from Japan. Our solution was simple: switch them off from one day to the next so to speak. In the years before, Germany had already lost its global lead role in production of solar panels, it is not long time ago when German companies were the world market leader in quality and in shares of the market. But then the government started to boost the industry branch by pumping enormous subsidies into it, to accelerate a switching from conventional energy production to solar panels. According companies were so successful that they increased their capacities with capital gained from investors, and these investory outsourced production to some degree, and more important: there was a massive transfer of know-how especially to Asia and China, while American companies grew by themselves into the market very fast, too. Even more so, the German government was so insane to pay subsidies not only to national companies, but to ALL producers delivering to Germany! But the Chinese producers of course now do it much cheaper. Result? German solar panel industry is down, the major companies all have died, and we still pay insane subsidies to foreign companies to deliver us solar panels that destroyed our own world-leading production. From crowns to rags, so to speak. I am no friend of subsidies ijn general - but this is probably the most absurd, hilarious and insane example of how to use subsidies in a totally suicidal fashion - to damage your own industry and strengthen your rivals - that I ever have heared of. We are used to pay tax reliefs and reorganisaiton fees via the EU to companies that oursouce jobs to other nations, that already is absurd enough. But the solar panel example - that one is priceless.

Really, do not do it like Germany did. Our politicians have no clue at all about what they are doing there, and the whole system is now totally FUBAR. Energy becomes more and more expensive here, it becomes a growing social problem here, and the more renewable energy we produce - the less competitive it becomes, which is against all normal economic logic, because the more widespread a production standard becomes, the cheaper the products usally become. Plus the damage to the energy supply stability, and the fact that our powergrid cannot handle the transportation of wind-produced electricity in the North to the industrial consumers in the South - bringing the powergrid into shape is calculated to cost doizens and dozens of billions in the next coming years - and that is why it will get delayed and probbaly will ot become true. But the costs from producing an instabile energy supply system with extremely expensively produced energy - that remains.

We now in winter import a greater ammount of nuclear power from France. That's the cream on top of it!

German consider themselves to be global messiahs, when it comes to being green. Nobody sorts his garbage as nicely as we do - just to throw 95% of the sorted household garbage into the garbage incineration plant nevertheless. We contribute 3% of industrial CO2 emissions to the global output, but we think that reducing these 3% to 1.5 % does make a serious difference for the planet, while the third world and the BRISC states increase their CO2 emissions and eat those saved 1.5% in no time, and then emit more. We tell everybody how great our green ways are - and ignore that nobody cares to follow us and opur precious wellmeant examples, leaves us standing in the rain instead.

Really, you are well advised NOT to do like we do, but to avoid our mistakes and do it differently, and better. Less messianic spirit and more pragmatism and realism - that is the way to go. But that is not the German way. And I would say the EU fails miserably over climate policies and the difference between claim and reality, too.

It worked better before the EU turned megalomaniac some 20 years ago, and before German governments turned into global messiahs. 30 years ago, many German rivers were a poison soup, swimming in the Rhine for example was considered to be a hazard to your health in most areas. Today you can swing in almost all of them again, and most lakes are amongst the cleanest in Europe south of Scandinavia. That regeneration was a true success story.

[troopie]

Yeah, that's my point! The rest of the world can learn from your mistakes! That's the best way to learn, kinda like modding really: having a go and cocking it up, then trying it a bit diferently next time!

If nobody takes those first dificult steps, no-one else will follow.

[August]

The lessons learned from the French failure to build the Panama Canal caused the Americans to institute an effective malaria abatement program which proved vital to the projects success.

[Skybird]

If nobody takes those first dificult steps, no-one else will follow.
It failed not due to difficulty. Warnings and cautionings and coutner-arguments - the writing was on the wall from all beginning on.

It failed due to decision makers being incompetent and dumb, and crowds being fatalistic and following modes without questioning them in depth.

[Tribesman]

It failed due to decision makers being incompetent and dumb, and crowds being fatalistic and following modes without questioning them in depth.
Good point, it works like that with the batteries too.
If those 3 mines run out then who is going to raise the question of the other 100+ mines? or the scary alternative of increasing the current extraction of the Lithium from the big blue wobbly thing mermaids live in?


I must say though, I am slightly confused.
30 years ago the rivers were poisoned, 20 years ago the government went meglomaniac on it, now you can swim in the clean water that used to be toxic soup.
So are you arguing for the government action or for more pollution in rivers or have you just completly lost the run of what you think you want to say again?
I have a strange feeling it is the latter .....again:rotfl2:

[nikimcbee]

What I don't understand is Al Gore who was leading the charge has seemingly disappeared from the face of global warming. :hmmm:

And that's a bad thing? I don't miss that windbag at all.

[Platapus]

We as a people can't agree on anything anymore..

I disagree with you.

:D

[geetrue]

We can't even agree on who made the earth ... how could we agree on what is causing the weather to change.

"He that controls the weather"
"Controls what man thinks"

I think this man Edgar Casey was wrong on reincarnation, but everything else he has said seems to make sense.

Boils down to who made the earth ... man or God.


The Edgar Cayce readings contain references to past pole shifts as well as future shifts. The shifting of the Earth’s poles, according to Cayce, is accompanied by a change in the consciousness of humanity.

During the past 3.5 million years, the magnetic poles of the Earth have shifted at least nine times. This has been determined through sampling of the “magnetic records” formed by rock in the ocean beds and in ancient lava formations. It is not known how and why the magnetic poles can reverse, nor is it exactly known what the effect on life would be. Scientists believe that the Earth’s poles reverse an average of every 200,000 years, but the time between reversals has varied widely. The Sun reverses its magnetic poles fairly routinely: essentially every 11 years. Sources: National Geophysical Data Center; Astronomy, by Michael Zelik (1985)


http://www.edgarcayce.org/_AncientMysteriesTemp/poleshifts.html

[MH]

I don't know what and why...but its hot.