Quote of the Day on the Cornucopia of Taxpayer Dollars for Renewable Energy, aka Crony Capitalism
Source: NY Times article "A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search."
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Sunday, November 13, 2011
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Interesting Fact of the Day: As the "Saudi Arabia ...
- Big Farm's Crony Capitalism and Corporate Welfare
- Filmmaker Michael Moore's $2m Torch Lake Vacation ...
- Peter Thiel on Higher Education Bubble. Aptitude T...
- The Long, Undistinguished, and Very Costly Graveya...
- Natural Gas Is Boosting U.S. Regional Economies
- "The 99%" of Us Get Fined and Go to Jail for Insid...
- Wage Gap With China Continues to Shrink, Which Wil...
- Today 11/11/11 is Nigel Tufnel Day
- Federal Raid on Gibson Signals U.S. Is Not Open fo...
59 Comments:
NYT guilty of shoddy, incomplete reporting, says NRG in Rebuttal
Ok, now lets hear what you have to say about crony capitalism of the type favored by conservatives.
Nuclear Power has been subsidized from day 1 and never heard any complaints from the people who now complain about "crony capitalism" for solar.
CD promotes itself as libertarian but in many of the posts - the tilt is clearly biased and partisan and essentially a lap dog for right wing echo chamber.
For every thread that has some merit, the next one usually does not disappoint ... red meat to stir things up...
In a post like this - what would be worth reading is how we subsidize energy in general and which ones in specific and not just this administration but over the last several.
How can we justify subsidies for Nukes for decades and then turn around and say that subsidies for renewables is "crony capitalism"?
"Nuclear Power has been subsidized from day 1 and never heard any complaints from the people who now complain about "crony capitalism" for solar"...
Typical of larry g, making an unsubstantiated blanket statement while NOT acknowledging the fact that massive federal interference might indeed drive some federal support for the nuclear energy industry...
"Ok, now lets hear what you have to say about crony capitalism of the type favored by conservatives"...
LMAO! What's obvious here is that the alledged conservatives hydra claims practice or want to practice crony capitalism aren't actually conservatives....
Walter Russell Mead has a commentary on the very same article from the New York Times: Obscene Green Gold Rush Embarasses the New York Times
The money line: 'Putting green lipstick on a pig doesn’t turn that pig into Ralph Nader. A full generation after the movement kicked off, too many greens are still clueless babes in the woods, regularly taken to the cleaners by cunning and clever corporate interests who know how to say all the right words. Like ethanol, solar and subsidy'...
It should be clear to statists from both sides by now that the government should have no place in making business decisions, picking winners, and creating losers.
Well as some wag on another site noted: "the government doesn't pick winners & losers: It picks ONLY losers, because winners don't need the government"...
After 40+ years of solar research, it remains 4x as expensive as existing technology, even while its vast all-consuming land requirements and quickly declining conversion efficiencies structurally preclude it as a significant energy alternative.
Meanwhile natural gas, without subsidy, is saving more CO2 (if you care about that kind of thing) than all of solar combined.
But the greens mysteriously don't like gas either. Is it because it is a scary 'unnatural' gas, not 'organic' enough, or is it because it is being developed by evil corporations?
Perhaps gas does not conform to the pastoral meme of a lone self-sustaining farmhouse in the wilderness, surrounded by free range chickens and home grown vegetables, the house warmed by the Sun God while its occupants work on their wireless i-Pads.
Solar is a subsidized religion.
End of story.
As for nuclear, there is more than suspicion in the proposal that sustainable, unsubsidized, inexpensive nuclear energy would long ago been developed if both government and lobbyists had kept their heavy hands off its innovation path.
We knew back in the 50s that nuclear weapon technology was a less than ideal starting point for nuclear energy with other alternatives available. Still, the government insisted and persisted.
Now it looks like China has taken up those alternatives because USA will not. They have licensed those moldy old American patents. It also appears they have figured it out; a nuclear reactor that can not melt down and therefore does not require all the safe-guard systems which comprise 4/5ths of its cost to manufacture.
If that is true, then nuclear will provide a viable alternative that is even cheaper than oil and natural gas, which makes sense since it is the densest fuel. And thorium is as available as lead.
The ironic thing about government research is that it has so insistently ignored the densest fuel (with therefore the most promise) all these years, where existing technology already exists and demonstrated promise. Further, because of the dollars involved, government could make its strongest argument for intervention into the market.
Instead, it is off screwing around with solar panels and wind farms, where because of their low BTUs and lack of ready storage it could never represent a foundational new future.
The ironic thing about government research is that it has so insistently ignored the densest fuel (with therefore the most promise) all these years, where existing technology already exists and demonstrated promise. Further, because of the dollars involved, government could make its strongest argument for intervention into the market.
There is nothing ironic about it. You are assuming that the goal was cheap and safe energy. But reality shows otherwise. Such approaches were abandoned so that the government could pursue nuclear reactors that produced waste that can be turned into bombs.
Larry,
"How can we justify subsidies for Nukes for decades and then turn around and say that subsidies for renewables is "crony capitalism"?
A)Nobody is justifying nuke subsidies.
B)Regarding "crony capitalism," Something like 80% of DOE green energy loans went to Obama backers.
As with pretty much everything this idiot does, he takes it to a unprecedented level in the wrong direction.
if the competition was between solar, wind and nukes that don't melt down - then let them compete on a level economic playing field.
we we started subsidizing Nukes, we opened the door to other folks wanting subsidies for "other" kinds of energy.
solar/wind will win out eventually but we don't know at this point how fast the technology might advance.
I don't think we're going to see many more conventional nukes.
I have no problem with Natural Gas and would prefer it over coal.
that might well be the best use for natural gas - use it near where it is being extracted - to generate electricity.
Solar is in the beginning stages of an exponential growth / declining cost curve, similar to Moore's law for silicon transistor counts on CPUs, and another one for MIPS/power input. Cheaper, small and more efficient, with inflation-adjusted costs per MW dropping 7% per year.
CEO, NRG Energy: "We believe that in the next 3 to 5 years you'll be able to get power cheaper from the roof of your house than from the grid. Solar is going to go from this thing that right now is like .1 percent of the market to 20 to 30 percent of the overall electricity mix. That's huge....If you go back about four years to where the price of solar modulars were, the prices have been cut in half in the last four years. I predict that the price of solar modules will be cut in half again in the next two years...."
THat's not to mention the existing massive subsidies of fossil fuel generation. Internalize all of those currently-external costs (health, environmental) first, THEN compare retail costs based on generation source. Coal wouldn't be so cheap if they had to pay for the asthma health effects and cancer deaths it causes (for instance).
(I'm sure some will gag at the links, but the logic and data are reasonable)
Good charts at: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/07/362705/krugman-solar-power/
NRG CEO quote: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/13/366764/utility-ceo-solar-cheaper-grid/
Krugman: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html
Solar is in the beginning stages of an exponential growth / declining cost curve, similar to Moore's law for silicon transistor counts on CPUs, and another one for MIPS/power input. Cheaper, small and more efficient, with inflation-adjusted costs per MW dropping 7% per year.
Nonsense. Solar is far from competitive and years from being viable without huge subsidies from taxpayers and consumers.
CEO, NRG Energy: "We believe that in the next 3 to 5 years you'll be able to get power cheaper from the roof of your house than from the grid. Solar is going to go from this thing that right now is like .1 percent of the market to 20 to 30 percent of the overall electricity mix. That's huge....If you go back about four years to where the price of solar modulars were, the prices have been cut in half in the last four years. I predict that the price of solar modules will be cut in half again in the next two years...."
It does not matter what the CEO believes. What matters is where the company is earning its profits from. And that isn't unsubsidized solar.
@VangelV:
"Solar is far from competitive and years from being viable without huge subsidies from taxpayers and consumers."
Every energy source is subsidized, the question is HOW subsidized is solar compared to subsidies for other energy sources.
Do you know of recent-ish data about current energy subsidies - total amounts and % basis?
I did find this:
Distribution of federal energy subsidy dollars:
70%: oil, natgas, coal
15%: ethanol
10%: hydro
5%: wind, solar, geothermal
Not included: nuclear (would be 10% if included)
"There are plenty of hidden subsidies, too. We place a cap on liability for accidents (like the BP oil spill). We offer the nuclear industry large loan guarantees. And, of course, we maintain an immense military embroiled in the Middle East and elsewhere as it tries to secure access to energy resources around the globe."
"What do we taxpayers get in return? Not much. Certainly there’s no evidence that subsidies do anything significant to increase our domestic energy supply. A recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Agency found that subsidies for domestic energy production doubled between 1999 and 2007, but despite all the extra money the amount of energy supplied by domestic sources stayed the same."
(Source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html)
---
Looking at it differently, a 2006 study by Texas showed subsidy expenditures as a % of consumer costs + subsidies (i.e. how subsidized are each energy source):
26%: ethanol
21%: nuclear
12%: solar
12%: wind
7%: coal
4.5%: all renewables
0.9%: all non-renewables
Note that this does NOT included externalized costs, which are huge numbers, including health, environmental and military spending, and would seem to apply more to fossil fuels than anything else.
(source: http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/)
I'd love to see this last analysis updated thru 2011, and with a decent effort at totaling up gross exteranlized costs per energy source.
Every energy source is subsidized, the question is HOW subsidized is solar compared to subsidies for other energy sources.
Do you know of recent-ish data about current energy subsidies - total amounts and % basis?
I did find this:
Distribution of federal energy subsidy dollars:
70%: oil, natgas, coal
15%: ethanol
10%: hydro
5%: wind, solar, geothermal
Did you notice the deception girls and boys? We get a claim about subsidies that deals with total dollars. The categories are lumped together so it is hard to make anything out. But what we can make out is the fact that wind, solar, geothermal do not show up on a chart of total energy production and they get a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money. Then there are the TAXES COLLECTED from the production of oil, gas, and coal. They are hundreds of times greater than the so-called subsidies, which are usually legitimate items such as depletion allowances, capital depreciation, and other write-offs that other industries get.
The argument is nonsense. There is no economic case for solar and the subsidies should be cut.
Nuc's have a liability limit set by the government. But given a choice between righties wanting nucs that run 24x7 and lefties wanting solar which is 12x7, I'll take the former. I just hope that one day we can buy Chinese or Indian thorium reactors since they do the research Americans won't do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/india-thorium-nuclear-plant
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
Steve: "Solar is in the beginning stages of an exponential growth / declining cost curve, similar to Moore's law for silicon transistor counts on CPUs, and another one for MIPS/power input. Cheaper, small and more efficient, with inflation-adjusted costs per MW dropping 7% per year."
No it's not. Calm yourself down for a moment. There are several problems:
- Limits: Sunlight at the top of the atmosphere has an energy of about 1360 watts per square meter. The amount available at the surface is much less, due to such factors as atmospheric transparency including cloudiness, latitude, and number daylight hours/day. The average amount of sun energy at the surface is 340 watts per square meter.
Current solar technology is roughly 40% efficient. Panels produces 40watts of electricity for every 100 watts of solar energy that strikes the panels. Therefore, there is no exponential growth in efficiency, only perhaps a doubling. That means solar will always require huge expanses of panels.
- Variability: Depending on where you live, the amount of solar energy available varies, depending on latitude, number of sunny days per year, and season, with higher latitudes having less energy available, and greater variation between day/night and winter/summer.
- Storage: There is currently no viable, inexpensive way to store the electricity produced when the sun is shining. The need for electric lighting is at exactly those times when solar panels aren't producing any.
- Backup: As solar is intermittent, and not predictable, backup must be available to handle any and all potential needs. The existing grid appears to be the only practical backup source, which means that current energy production from coal, gas, oil, hydro, and nuclear, will still be required at current levels.
So, while prices will most likely continue to improve, it's difficult to imagine solar becoming a major source of electrical energy.
" Nobody is justifying nuke subsidies"
ah... there's a law you know.... that says if a Nuke goes bad - the govt will pick up the costs over 12.6 billion in damages.
The Fukushima disaster is estimated to cost more than $40 billion dollars.
Without the insurance subsidy, Nukes in the US would have to buy much more insurance which would make less economic than wind or solar.
When we decided to have the govt subsidize Nukes - it opened the door for other "uneconomic" technologies to also ask for subsidies on the same basis - they are "clean"er than coal or even gas.
But given a choice between righties wanting nucs that run 24x7 and lefties wanting solar which is 12x7, I'll take the former.
12x7? I take it that in the world of the greens it does not rain or snow and that it is always noon during the day.
" 12x7? I take it that in the world of the greens it does not rain or snow and that it is always noon during the day. "
wind/solar will never be 24/7 base load power .. that's true.
but base load from coal/nukes is not always 24/7 either and has to be "topped off" with natural gas "peaker" plants.
new coal plants require billions - up front to build - and have a investment horizon of 40-50 years.
are we really so sure that in ..say 40 or 50 years.... wind/solar integrated with a smart grid will not be a reality?
right now.. it is possible to run wind/solar for residential with a natural gas backup generator.
it works... it's just expensive but the price is steadily coming down.
If we hit a solar breakthrough, then many of these existing (and planned) coal plants could become stranded investments ...likely to be bailed out by ratepayers.
I think if you subtract all the back and forth among the pro and anti advocacy forces - the folks to watch are the ones who might invest in new coal plants (or not).
In we hit a major solar breakthrough, the utility stocks might well tank...
but base load from coal/nukes is not always 24/7 either and has to be "topped off" with natural gas "peaker" plants.
You are confused. Base load is 24/7. Natural gas is used because there is power required above that base load during peak periods. The problem with wind and solar is the lack of reliability. Even in the low countries where there is a great deal of wind power generated, there haven't been any closures of fossil fuel plants because the spinning turbines are needed to make up power drops due to the high variability that is inherent in the renewables industry.
new coal plants require billions - up front to build - and have a investment horizon of 40-50 years.
are we really so sure that in ..say 40 or 50 years.... wind/solar integrated with a smart grid will not be a reality?
The investors are sure. And the last time I looked it was their money that was at risk, not the taxpayers'.
right now.. it is possible to run wind/solar for residential with a natural gas backup generator.
LOL. You are getting to be dumber and dumber by the day. This is your solution? Having a bunch of homeowners spewing out pollution in their back yards when the wind dies down?
it works... it's just expensive but the price is steadily coming down.
It is EXPENSIVE. And UNRELIABLE. And did I mention that the price is not coming down steadily? That once the bankrupt companies get out of the business the survivors will not sell at a loss?
If we hit a solar breakthrough, then many of these existing (and planned) coal plants could become stranded investments ...likely to be bailed out by ratepayers.
No, they won't. The investors can take the loss on their own. And aren't you forgetting the billions of taxpayer funds wasted on the solar industry? Or the higher prices that consumers are forced to pay for energy so that we can subsidize wind and solar producers?
I think if you subtract all the back and forth among the pro and anti advocacy forces - the folks to watch are the ones who might invest in new coal plants (or not).
Well, if you look you will find that the utilities do not want solar or wind and would prefer coal. But in the political environment where the green industries carry a lot of clout the money is flowing to the uneconomic ventures.
In we hit a major solar breakthrough, the utility stocks might well tank...
Twenty years after this type of claim was first being pushed on the poor taxpayer it is getting a bit old.
"You are confused. Base load is 24/7. Natural gas is used because there is power required above that base load during peak periods. The problem with wind and solar is the lack of reliability."
what's reliable about coal if you have to have peaker gas to top off shortages in base load?
gas is how you deal with shortages of base load which, without peaker plants, we'd call it "unreliable" because it could not handle peak loads.
" Even in the low countries where there is a great deal of wind power generated, there haven't been any closures of fossil fuel plants because the spinning turbines are needed to make up power drops due to the high variability that is inherent in the renewables industry."
it's not closures (yet), it's how many new plants have been put off from being built... by adding wind instead.
"new coal plants require billions - up front to build - and have a investment horizon of 40-50 years.
are we really so sure that in ..say 40 or 50 years.... wind/solar integrated with a smart grid will not be a reality?
The investors are sure. And the last time I looked it was their money that was at risk, not the taxpayers'"
we'll know when/if solar/wind are "relevant" when investors lose their appetite for investing in new coal plants, though.
a major breakthrough in technology, I'd predict will result in pull back from coal.
"right now.. it is possible to run wind/solar for residential with a natural gas backup generator.
LOL. You are getting to be dumber and dumber by the day."
no dumber than you fool.
" This is your solution? Having a bunch of homeowners spewing out pollution in their back yards when the wind dies down?"
huh? do you think that natural gas generators are more polluting than natural gas turbine plants?
"it works... it's just expensive but the price is steadily coming down.
It is EXPENSIVE. And UNRELIABLE. And did I mention that the price is not coming down steadily? That once the bankrupt companies get out of the business the survivors will not sell at a loss? "
why do you say that wind/solar WITH natural gas backup generators is unreliable?
did you mention that major natural gas discoveries could lower the price and make it more advantages to generate power both industrial and residential?
"If we hit a solar breakthrough, then many of these existing (and planned) coal plants could become stranded investments ...likely to be bailed out by ratepayers.
No, they won't. The investors can take the loss on their own. And aren't you forgetting the billions of taxpayer funds wasted on the solar industry? Or the higher prices that consumers are forced to pay for energy so that we can subsidize wind and solar producers?"
are you saying that taxpayers /ratepayers will not bail out "stranded" investments in power plants - never/ever?
"I think if you subtract all the back and forth among the pro and anti advocacy forces - the folks to watch are the ones who might invest in new coal plants (or not).
Well, if you look you will find that the utilities do not want solar or wind and would prefer coal. But in the political environment where the green industries carry a lot of clout the money is flowing to the uneconomic ventures."
like Nukes?
"In we hit a major solar breakthrough, the utility stocks might well tank...
Twenty years after this type of claim was first being pushed on the poor taxpayer it is getting a bit old."
only a fool would bet that there would never be future breakthroughs in solar.....
as I said.. we are one solar breakthrough away from major impacts to coal-power plants.
when that breakthrough occurs could be 50, 100 years from now or it could be like the IPHONE....or GPS or other technologies that changed things in less than a decade.
what's reliable about coal if you have to have peaker gas to top off shortages in base load?
There is no shortage idiot. Coal produces exactly the amount of power that is planned 24/7. But you cannot plan the variation, which is why you use natural gas, coal gas, oil, hydro, or some other form to balance the difference.
The statement above shows just how ignorant you really are. How can you debate the subject when you have no idea what base load really means?
gas is how you deal with shortages of base load which, without peaker plants, we'd call it "unreliable" because it could not handle peak loads.
See statement above. The 'we' must be the idiots who don't understand what the terms peak power, base load, and reliability mean.
it's not closures (yet), it's how many new plants have been put off from being built... by adding wind instead.
The said none. The fossil fuel turbines keep spinning because you can't use wind to establish a base load and need to deal with the problem. Try reading up on the subject. You were given information and links to more information many times in the past.
we'll know when/if solar/wind are "relevant" when investors lose their appetite for investing in new coal plants, though.
a major breakthrough in technology, I'd predict will result in pull back from coal.
I do not disagree. If the real world were the same as your fantasy world we would not need coal power. But it isn't.
no dumber than you fool.
You are modest my friend. When it comes to stupidity you are the undisputed champion. At least on this board.
huh? do you think that natural gas generators are more polluting than natural gas turbine plants?
Yes I do. You need to maintain equipment. Most people are not very good on that front.
why do you say that wind/solar WITH natural gas backup generators is unreliable?
did you mention that major natural gas discoveries could lower the price and make it more advantages to generate power both industrial and residential?
Because they are unreliable. And I have heard the hype about natural gas. But I have yet to see any of the producers profit from this great discovery that isn't exactly new or the great new technology that is more than two decades old.
" But you cannot plan the variation, which is why you use natural gas, coal gas, oil, hydro, or some other form to balance the difference"
really?
if there is no shortage of coal then why would we not "plan" for enough coal-generated base load to start with and not have to have peaker nat gas plants?
it's unlikely in the short term (decades) that wind/solar will ever be suitable for base-load - alone but wind/solar have advantages in that they are distributed and can contribute in the same way that nat gas can at peak load times.
If wind/solar achieve technology advances that put them at the same cost as nat gas or un-subsidized nukes..they'll begin to become part of the grid.
the problem with coal base-load and nukes is that they cannot respond quickly enough to deal with peak loads and it takes time to ramp them down - in addition to load-balancing issues and that's why nat gas is used even though it's at least twice as costly as coal. It's not only faster going up and down but turbines can be much more easily distributed geographically.
re: natural gas backup units "maintenance".
you call me stupid but guy.. you're WORSE!
:-0
you fly by the seat of your butt even when you don't know shit from shinola...
tell me what maintenance needs to be done on home backup units....
I don't think you know guano from bat crap... sometimes.. but it don't keep you from keeping that blather machine from running full tilt.
really?
Yes. Really.Here is what you have to deal with. The baseline power will come from coal and will be adjusted by season. It will be produced 24/7 with natural gas providing enough to satisfy peak demand. The cheapest system may be one in which you can use coal and hydro in tandem. You open up the gates during peak periods and let the water accumulate behind the dam during the time when demand can be satisfied by baseline production.
if there is no shortage of coal then why would we not "plan" for enough coal-generated base load to start with and not have to have peaker nat gas plants?
Because demand changes far more rapidly than can be accommodated from the cheapest method of electricity production. While the new coal plants are far more capable of dealing with some of the hourly demand changes it is still cheaper to use natural gas for that purpose. You certainly do not want to build extra capacity in your coal plant only to see it idle for most of the year.
As I said, your ignorance is showing. Try reading up on the subject before you post again.
... " .. your ignorance is showing"
and you .. a fountain of knowledge.... ???
anti-govt, anti-science, anti-anti
;-)
and you .. a fountain of knowledge.... ???
I know what the terms baseline and peak power mean. I know why the industry does what it does. You on the other hand are still ignorant yet believe that you have the right to spew opinions as if you understood the issues.
Like I said, try at least to read a little bit. Perhaps enough to understand what the words that you use really mean. It is rather embarrassing when it is so obvious that you have no clue.
"Like I said, try at least to read a little bit. Perhaps enough to understand what the words that you use really mean. It is rather embarrassing when it is so obvious that you have no clue. "
yes.. we found out how much you "read" with understanding how social security works...ignorant as sin but spouting nonsense..
then we watched you on global warming.. dumb as a stump but thinks he's "smart" as jr. scientist.
then we listen to your anti-govt rants aka Beavis and Butthead...
you're as dumb as they come
..
the type that don't know that they don't know...
the good news? you might vote but there is no one out there that represents your views that has a prayer of getting into office....
yes.. we found out how much you "read" with understanding how social security works...ignorant as sin but spouting nonsense..
That was when you showed us that you did not understand what net present value meant. Yet you kept on and on.
then we watched you on global warming.. dumb as a stump but thinks he's "smart" as jr. scientist.
But I was right. We just had a nice book published that exposed the problems with the conflict of interest within the IPCC. And the leaks from the latest AR show that the IPCC will now be talking about how natural factors will keep temperatures from going up for the next few decades. The latest sea level data shows no increases since 2003. The ARGO data falsified Hansen's claims of monotonic heating of the oceans. Everything that I said has been verified with empirical data. Your narrative has been discredited.
anyone who thinks that climate science is a massive worldwide conspiracy of govt, science and media demonstrates his "intellect" quite well.
you're whacko fella...
"right" in your world is what you wish to believe... and if the world violates it -then the world is engaging in a massive conspiracy...
anyone who thinks that climate science is a massive worldwide conspiracy of govt, science and media demonstrates his "intellect" quite well.
If it is a conspiracy it certainly is not secret. The UN always said that the IPCC was an intergovernmental group with a very clear agenda; to find the impact of human emissions of CO2 on climate change. The funding was always very clear. If you help us try to find the link you get a lot of money and get to meet three or four times a year in excellent accommodations in top resorts around the world.
The staffing was very clear. The UN picked people it wanted to help it meet its political agenda. This is why so many of the lead authors and reviewers have strong connections to the green groups and green industries and why so many unqualified people got jobs that competent scientists were denied.
The science is also clear. The ice core data shows that the temperature trend comes first and that CO2 levels follow 800 years or so later. The proxy data shows warm periods during the Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warming, Roman Warming, and Medieval Warm Period. None of them had anything to do with CO2 emissions. The proxy data also shows a cool period that ended around 150 years ago. It is no surprise that we would be warmer today than we were at the end of that cooling period. But the science also shows that the warming began in the depths of that period, long before human CO2 emissions began to be material.
I have to go now because my kids want to play. Try educating yourself my friend because you have to be one of the dumbest people on this thread. If you try harder you may yet catch up to Benji.
" I have to go now because my kids want to play. Try educating yourself my friend because you have to be one of the dumbest people on this thread. If you try harder you may yet catch up to Benji"
more like you?
lord!
what's "CLEAR" here is that you live in your own little world anything that contradicts it is a conspiracy - worldwide even!
hopefully your kids grow up smarte than you but it's a stretch.....
do you send them to public schools by the way?
what's "CLEAR" here is that you live in your own little world anything that contradicts it is a conspiracy - worldwide even!
Hell no. Most of the wold knows that the IPCC is full of crap and there is very little support for the idea of AGW being some type of crisis. For the record, there is nothing new about the AGW scam. Less than a hundred years ago the world's most important scientific bodies all supported the eugenics movement and had all kinds of 'data' to support the claim that Chinese, blacks, and Jews were genetically inferior and dumber than whites. Well, the data turned out not to be very good and the uncertainties in the conclusions being drawn were somewhat understated, to put it charitably. Nothing has changed much. The politicians and their appointees are still pushing their political agendas and the 'scientists' are doing their best to manufacture as many favourable results as possible while they ignore or dismiss the empirical data.
But as I said, that did not turn out well. The skeptics brought to light so many inconsistencies, outright fabrications, and omissions that even the political appointees are getting nervous. The leaked drafts from the latest Assessment Report AGW promoters are now admitting that natural factors are important and will keep temperatures from rising for around three decades even though CO2 emissions have exploded.
I suggest that you actually do some of the reading that you need because you seem to have missed the fact that you have gone from the 'majority' position to being in a small minority without changing any of your views. As I said, you are not very smart and need an education.
sorry.. "suggestions" coming from conspiracy theory whackos don't have much import.
you're good at arguing but you're terrible at common sense and logic and to believe the whole world is engaged in a conspiracy is beyond the pale.
sorry.. "suggestions" coming from conspiracy theory whackos don't have much import.
You are still either lazy or stupid. The empirical data shows that the AGW claims are wrong. Those are not suggestions. They are direct observations. And as I pointed out, the leaked IPCC drafts show that some of the lead authors are trying to salvage what is left of their reputations and finally admitting that natural factors are far more important than they claimed int the previous ARs. They have admitted that CO2 levels went up over the past 15 years without seeing any statistically significant warming trend being found and are now claiming another decade of two without any warming as natural factors offset whatever warming they believe is caused by CO2.
Basically, the frauds at the IPCC are following public opinion and backing off from their false positions. Everyone but you, the promoters that have no way out, and a few useful idiots have finally figured out the scam. The ship is sinking and it looks like you will be one of the last rats to get off.
nope. the facts are clear here.. you are the idiot ..the worldwide conspiracy fool...
Mr. Junior Scientist you are...
I watched you with Jon guy.. and it's no contest...
there's a difference between dumb and willful ignorance ... but you do qualify
then add your beavis/butthead personality and condescending / arrogant tendencies and we got an impressive piece of work...
nope. the facts are clear here.. you are the idiot ..the worldwide conspiracy fool...
Except that everything that I have been saying is now being recognized at material.
I watched you with Jon guy.. and it's no contest...
You are damned right. That Jon guy admitted that he had no clue about the issues and showed that most of his information comes from warmer sites rather than the scientific papers. But that puts him well ahead of you dumdum. Jon is smart enough to admit that he does not know what he does not know.
there's a difference between being ignorant (we all are) and being willfully ignorant by believing that thousands of scientists and a couple hundred government are engaging in a worldwide conspiracy.
You are ignorant when you say that thousands of scientists are coming up with the IPCC conclusions. The document that you see printed is put together by around 50 political appointees who may write things that many of the scientists do not agree with.
We knew as far back as 1995 that Lead Authors were doctoring the reports. Key portions of the report that were accepted by the contributing scientists were taken out or changed by Ben Santer. All of the changes were designed to downplay the doubt about the state of the knowledge and to hide the amount of uncertainty about the modelling of human emissions on the temperature trend.
We know that in 2001 the Lead Authors accepted MBH98 and MBH99 even though the post 1960s results diverged from the actual measurements and the methodology used was not statistically valid.
We know that in 2007 the Lead Authors did not allow actual discussion of the Svensmark and Shaviv empirical evidence that showed a major effect by solar activity and CRF.
The leaked documents from the current AR show that the scientists are now talking about a lack of warming for at least three decades during which CO2 emissions were at record highs because they seem to have discovered the natural factors that they conveniently forgot to consider adequately in previous reports. I am assuming that this time around they will not include the grey literature that made 30% of the last set of references but you never know what will happen when the Lead Authors get together to do the bidding of their political and financial masters.
Of course, people like me have had their effect. Copenhagen, Kyoto, and Durban are dead. Most carbon tax and trading schemes are dead because more and more people finally had a look and could not find any empirical evidence to support the AGW fraud.
anyone who premises their opinion on the belief that there is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists and governments and media is not normal in my view.
Is GW the only issue in which you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy?
Do you believe that all science is conspiratorial and untrustworthy?
do you believe the scientists that say that cigarettes cause lung cancer are lying and engaged in a worldwide conspiracy because they want to preserve their govt funding?
there is no "proof" you know, just the widespread "concurrence" of the scientific community that there is strong evidence even though there is contradictory data like people who smoke their whole life but don't get lung cancer.
do you think these folks are also engaged in a worldwide conspiracy ?
I call folks who think this way - willfully ignorant....
there were folks like you around when scientists first postulated that cigarettes caused cancer..or for that matter substances such as dioxin or PCBs or mercury were damaging.
there are always people like this but it goes over the top when they think this AND they think the scientists and govts are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to boot.
but I do give you that you are good at arguing - even bizarre points of view.
;-)
anyone who premises their opinion on the belief that there is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists and governments and media is not normal in my view.
So you have said this. But I have never said that it is some great conspiracy. The UN was very honest about why it created the IPCC. The IPCC was honest when it showed that the 'scientists' were picked by governments. While the IPCC lied about the qualifications of the people it selected, about the use of only peer reviewed literature, and was not very transparent when it came to conflicts of interest the information was there for anyone wishing to do some leg work to find out the truth. That would not happen in a real 'conspiracy' in the usual sense of the word.
Is GW the only issue in which you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy?
I don't think that there is much of a conspiracy. Few people believe the AGW myth any longer and most of the activities that the IPCC was created to justify have already been rejected. (You can thank me and people like me later.)
Do you believe that all science is conspiratorial and untrustworthy?
No. But much of what is considered 'science' isn't very scientific. In science we do not use only 95% confidence intervals or 'adjust' and cherry pick data to get predetermined results. We do not use statistically invalid methods and state the uncertainties. The IPCC fails the test, which is why most of the people who are in the hard sciences do not buy the story.
do you believe the scientists that say that cigarettes cause lung cancer are lying and engaged in a worldwide conspiracy because they want to preserve their govt funding?
No. There is sufficient empirical evidence to argue that cigarette smoking increases lung cancer rates in smokers. So that part is probably not a lie. But there are many other lies that have to do with residual exposure to smoke.
there is no "proof" you know, just the widespread "concurrence" of the scientific community that there is strong evidence even though there is contradictory data like people who smoke their whole life but don't get lung cancer.
You really think that there is no proof? Try reading a bit more and learn to do your own literature searches.
there were folks like you around when scientists first postulated that cigarettes caused cancer..or for that matter substances such as dioxin or PCBs or mercury were damaging.
Cigarettes used to be known as cancer sticks and coffin nails. The fact that studies confirmed what was suspected was not a surprise to anyone.
" You really think that there is no proof? Try reading a bit more and learn to do your own literature searches"
there is a similar level of 'proof' for cigarette smoking and cancer as there is for GW.
there is no definitive clinical trial that I know of for linking cigarette smoking to cancer.
since not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking, the "skeptics" have over the years said that the correlation is not 100%.
there goes your one or two sigma "proof", eh?
the question is do you "believe" that smoking will cause cancer and if you do is that why you would not smoke?
you say that few people "believe" in GW anymore. Really?
just a cursory "survey" will reveal many, many people, scientists, scientific organizations and govts that do.
what they don't agree on is what to do about it and when.
there is a similar level of 'proof' for cigarette smoking and cancer as there is for GW.
You forgot the A part. We all know that the earth has warmed up since the Maunder Minimum. We all know that most of this took place when CO2 emissions were not material. So nobody will argue that when you are coming out of something that is called the 'Little Ice Age' you are not getting warmer. The issue is about two things. First, you need to prove that the warming is due to human emissions of CO2, which means that you need studies that use empirical data to reach that conclusion. As I pointed out, the IPCC has never provided any empirical evidence to support its conclusions that human beings burning fuels are the primary driver of temperature change. Second there is the how much warming have we really seen. That is not very easy to figure out because of the very poor quality of the stations and the lack of warming in the raw data from most of the world.
The cancer studies were much better and very convincing. They showed that the people who called cigarettes 'cancer sticks' or 'coffin nails' were right.
The fact that you can talk about cancer and bring up trivia but have absolutely no reference to a single study that uses empirical evidence to show that human emissions of CO2 are a possible driver of temperature trends shows us just how poor the IPCC's case really is. Actually, had you paid attention, which you don't, you would have noticed that their claim is based on the argument that their scientists can't think of another cause for the warming after 1950. Well, if you paid attention to the leaks you will find that the IPCC's rough draft for the next AR has finally admitted that natural factors play a significant role.
since not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking, the "skeptics" have over the years said that the correlation is not 100%.
That may be true. Not all smokers have to get cancer because some may be genetically protected from the damage caused by smoking. But that does not mean that smoking does not cause cancer in the general population.
there goes your one or two sigma "proof", eh?
Since when does one or two sigma signify proof of anything? In the hard sciences we try to go out much much further.
you say that few people "believe" in GW anymore. Really?
I said that few people in the world believed that AGW is a problem. As my kids keep telling me, most people are too sensible to fall for scams for very long.
http://www.people-press.org/2010/01/25/publics-priorities-for-2010-economy-jobs-terrorism/
VangelV
Pew Research Ctr. Report:
Wow. It's hard to things on that list that Obama and the Congress are even authorized to deal with.
I guess Pew doesn't consider a question about government overreach to be of any interest to the public.
" The cancer studies were much better and very convincing. They showed that the people who called cigarettes 'cancer sticks' or 'coffin nails' were right."
in your OPINION but in terms of absolute "proof" - they did not show that and their were obvious contradictions with folks who did not get cancer.
this is analogous to the lack of "absolute proof" of GW and the seeming contradictions but ..in the opinion of a majority of people schooled in climate science the evidence is compelling.
you disagree but worse that that you believe that their agreement constitutes collusion on a worldwide scale.
that's not sane.
it's one thing put yourself in the minority but acknowledge that you are. It's quite another to accuse the majority - as a group - of lying.
no matter how well you argue your points (and you do), the bottom line is your position is not tenable for a sane person.
in your OPINION but in terms of absolute "proof" - they did not show that and their were obvious contradictions with folks who did not get cancer.
this is analogous to the lack of "absolute proof" of GW and the seeming contradictions but ..in the opinion of a majority of people schooled in climate science the evidence is compelling.
No dumdum, it isn't analogous. There are real studies that use empirical data to show a link between smoking and cancer. There are no empirical studies to show a link between HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 and CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE TRENDS. None of you morons have ever supplied a link to a single study that used empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. Even the IPCC says that it must be man who caused the trend after the 1950s because its models can't point to natural factors that could have been responsible. Models that have no predictive skills are not empirical evidence of anything.
Try learning about science as well as economics. It seems that for a guy who is confident of his positions you have to be one of the most ignorant people around.
" in your OPINION but in terms of absolute "proof" - they did not show that and their were obvious contradictions with folks who did not get cancer.
this is analogous to the lack of "absolute proof" of GW and the seeming contradictions but ..in the opinion of a majority of people schooled in climate science the evidence is compelling.
No dumdum, it isn't analogous. There are real studies that use empirical data to show a link between smoking and cancer. There are no empirical studies to show a link between HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 and CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE TRENDS. None of you morons have ever supplied a link to a single study that used empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. Even the IPCC says that it must be man who caused the trend after the 1950s because its models can't point to natural factors that could have been responsible. Models that have no predictive skills are not empirical evidence of anything."
there are NO DEFINITIVE CLINIC Studies fool...
how about you produce a couple of the "studies" you say do link?
I'll bet you that they do not show incontrovertible proof nor can they explain why some life-long smokers don't get cancer.
"Try learning about science as well as economics. It seems that for a guy who is confident of his positions you have to be one of the most ignorant people around."
I know enough when someone else is an idiot who believes when scientific community views are overwhelming and that idiot claims it's a global conspiracy behind the majority of science who hold the opposite view.
and you father children.. lord...
there are NO DEFINITIVE CLINIC Studies fool...
how about you produce a couple of the "studies" you say do link?
I will produce the papers showing a link between smoking and cancer as soon as you show me the empirical evidence that HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2 HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE TRENDS.
That should be easy enough. Or are you saying that there is no evidence to support the AGW lie but that we must accept it because there is no evidence for cigarette smoking causing cancer? But if you believe that there is no evidence that shows that smoking causes cancer why do you support anti-smoking laws? Do you have something about bad breath?
" I will produce the papers showing a link between smoking and cancer as soon as you show me the empirical evidence that HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2 HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE TRENDS. "
I never claimed they did.
I said that in BOTH cases - it was the body of evidence - not conclusive proof that convinced most people.
you demand conclusive evidence for one but not for the other.
I ask you to use the same "proof" criteria for both
.. and you bail...
how about you produce a couple of the "studies" you say do link?
I'll bet you that they do not show incontrovertible proof nor can they explain why some life-long smokers don't get cancer.
Let me clarify something. I am not suggesting that there is laboratory proof that shows that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. The studies that I refer to are epidemiological, which are very different than lab experiments. Those studies use statistical methods to show that smoking most likely causes lung cancer.
Let me repeat again. There are NO SUCH STUDIES that show that HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2 ARE A DRIVER OF TEMPERATURE TRENDS. There is NO OBSERVATIONAL DATA that supports the AGW lie. If you have any study that uses observational data then show it. As I said before, there are plenty such studies to show the link between smoking and cancer.
By the way, I can show you studies that show that a change in temperature causes a change in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is what all those nice ice core charts that Gore was showing illustrate perfectly. The trend changed and about 800 years after the change of temperature CO2 concentration followed.
I never claimed they did.
If you are not claiming that the evidence shows that HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2 HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE TRENDS then why do you support the AGW lie?
Keep in mind that the IPCC has just indicated that it will write in its next report that no matter how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere the temperature will not go up over the next two decades or so, which means that CO2 is not the factor that they used to claim it was.
" Those studies use statistical methods to show that smoking most likely causes lung cancer.
and global warming...
and most scientists and people DO accept the findings of both.
V: " Those studies use statistical methods to show that smoking most likely causes lung cancer."
Bozo: "and global warming..."
Smoking causes global warming? Who knew?
Wouldn't that take a lot of smoking?
Post a Comment
<< Home