Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[kallend 1,672]

billvon

>We're already propping up Elon Musk so over-priveleged douchebags can drive
>$100,000 golf carts.

And propping up GM so that brainless morons can drive lousy cars that sound fast. Seems fair.

>I think we should just keep throwing money at the solar problem. It works in
>California...

and Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and North Carolina. And Vermont, Maryland and Oregon. And Pennsylvania and Connecticut. And Ohio, Florida and Texas.

But when you look at Arkansas or Missouri, there's not too much solar capacity installed there. SOLAR DOESN'T WORK!

There are some massive wind farms in Indiana. Indiana is, of course, extremely liberal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,464]

>But seriously, what do you have against the big 3? It seems personal. . .

Nothing. They make some good cars, some not so good cars. Like most car companies. (Except for Renault. As far as I can tell, they don't make a single good car.)

[airdvr 200]

kallend

***>We're already propping up Elon Musk so over-priveleged douchebags can drive
>$100,000 golf carts.

And propping up GM so that brainless morons can drive lousy cars that sound fast. Seems fair.

>I think we should just keep throwing money at the solar problem. It works in
>California...

and Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and North Carolina. And Vermont, Maryland and Oregon. And Pennsylvania and Connecticut. And Ohio, Florida and Texas.

But when you look at Arkansas or Missouri, there's not too much solar capacity installed there. SOLAR DOESN'T WORK!

There are some massive wind farms in Indiana. Indiana is, of course, extremely liberal.

‘We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,’ Warren Buffett said.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Phil1111 932]

airdvr

******>We're already propping up Elon Musk so over-priveleged douchebags can drive
>$100,000 golf carts.

And propping up GM so that brainless morons can drive lousy cars that sound fast. Seems fair.

>I think we should just keep throwing money at the solar problem. It works in
>California...

and Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and North Carolina. And Vermont, Maryland and Oregon. And Pennsylvania and Connecticut. And Ohio, Florida and Texas.

But when you look at Arkansas or Missouri, there's not too much solar capacity installed there. SOLAR DOESN'T WORK!

There are some massive wind farms in Indiana. Indiana is, of course, extremely liberal.

‘We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,’ Warren Buffett said.

I know change is tough. I know change is hard for some people to understand, especially new technology.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2016/06/vestas-scores-massive-order-for-warren-buffett.html

http://fortune.com/warren-buffett-wind-power-berkshire-hathaway-energy/

Coal's Devastation

Scholars may never understand the energy source's full economic cost, but that doesn't make its damage any less knowable.

They looked at everything: the damage to the climate, to people’s health, and to the plants and animals around the mines. In the end, they estimated that the sum total of coal’s externalities amounted to between 9.42 cents and 26.89 cents per kilowatt-hour. Their best guess put it at 17.84 cents. The United States’ dependence on coal cost the public “a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually,” they wrote.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/coals-externalities-medical-air-quality-financial-environmental/401075/

The US wind subsidy is 23 cents per kwh.

A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion),

So $1.1 trillion a year... plus the cost of war and the military to defend middle east BIG OIL

Did U.S. spend $6 trillion in Middle East wars?... total reaches $4.79 trillion.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/27/donald-trump/did-us-spend-6-trillion-middle-east-wars/

So add another 4.8 trillion for middle east oil supply security.

How cheap again is coal and oil?????

Wind Energy Now Directly Competing With Coal On Cost
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Wind-Energy-Now-Directly-Competing-With-Coal-On-Cost.html

But don't let FACTS interfere with notions, alt-facts and false economic ideas that coal is a factor. Or that for electricity generation nat gas is currently at parity and oil, gas doesn't already receive over a trillion a year in subsidies from US citizens.

[airdvr 200]

It's difficult anymore to sort through the noise when the government is picking the winners and losers.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[winsor 189]

billvon

>But seriously, what do you have against the big 3? It seems personal. . .

Nothing. They make some good cars, some not so good cars. Like most car companies. (Except for Renault. As far as I can tell, they don't make a single good car.)

IIRC Claude Renault pioneered front wheel drive, which is a plus.

I agree that they have made some real turkeys.

Having said that, they have made the odd car that was fun to drive.

[DJL 232]

airdvr

It's difficult anymore to sort through the noise when the government is picking the winners and losers.

These things aren't as simple as catchy campaign slogans.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,464]

>These things aren't as simple as catchy campaign slogans.

Then they shall be MADE simple! Complexity, forethought and deliberation have no place in Trump's America. It's us or them, plain and simple!

[brenthutch 388]

It looks as if The EPA is deliberating to reclassify CO2 as a non-pollutant. I guess chevron deference cuts both ways.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

It looks as if The EPA is deliberating to reclassify CO2 as a non-pollutant. I guess chevron deference cuts both ways.

This really is turning into the dihydrogen monoxide joke.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,464]

>This really is turning into the dihydrogen monoxide joke.

Careful, there. With the direction the country is going, no one may get that kind of a joke in a few years.
==========================
Trump Leaves Science Jobs Vacant, Troubling Critics

By CECILIA KANG and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
MARCH 30, 2017

WASHINGTON — On the fourth floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the staff of the White House chief technology officer has been virtually deleted, down from 24 members before the election to, by Friday, only one.

Scores of departures by scientists and Silicon Valley technology experts who advised Mr. Trump’s predecessor have all but wiped out the larger White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Mr. Trump has not yet named his top advisers on technology or science, and so far, has made just one hire: Michael Kratsios, the former chief of staff for Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley investor and one of the president’s wealthiest supporters, as the deputy chief technology officer.

Neither Mr. Kratsios, who has a bachelor’s degree in political science from Princeton, nor anyone else still working in the science and technology office regularly participates in Mr. Trump’s daily briefings, as they did for President Barack Obama.
===========================

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>This really is turning into the dihydrogen monoxide joke.

Careful, there. With the direction the country is going, no one may get that kind of a joke in a few years.
==========================
Trump Leaves Science Jobs Vacant, Troubling Critics

By CECILIA KANG and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
MARCH 30, 2017

WASHINGTON — On the fourth floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the staff of the White House chief technology officer has been virtually deleted,
===========================

Thank goodness he has only been virtually deleted. If he were actually deleted we would have a scandal on our hands.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

***>This really is turning into the dihydrogen monoxide joke.

Careful, there. With the direction the country is going, no one may get that kind of a joke in a few years.
==========================
Trump Leaves Science Jobs Vacant, Troubling Critics

By CECILIA KANG and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
MARCH 30, 2017

WASHINGTON — On the fourth floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the staff of the White House chief technology officer has been virtually deleted,
===========================

Thank goodness he has only been virtually deleted. If he were actually deleted we would have a scandal on our hands.

It was more of an Alt-F4, not a Cntl/Alt/Del kind of deletion. We can restart the program again once there's a President who knows there's more use for technology than insulting people.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

So...2020?

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

So...2020?

Yes, President Ivanka should be ready by then.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

More on Trumps regulatory overreact correction.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/27/14922516/trump-executive-order-climate

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

More on Trumps regulatory overreact correction.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/27/14922516/trump-executive-order-climate

Regardless of politics this is probably doing more harm than help to the energy sector. It doesn't help investor confidence if regulatory issues get slapped back and forth every four years.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/lies-damned-lies-and-the-epas-clean-power-plan/

Regulations based on manipulated data, and falsehoods do not make for good policy regardless of the Party in power.

[billvon 2,464]

>Regulations based on manipulated data, and falsehoods do not make for good
>policy regardless of the Party in power.

Agreed! It would be great if you'd follow through on that and give up on the fossil fuel funded falsehoods that make up the climate change denial industry, but I have a feeling that your politics will never let you do that.

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>Regulations based on manipulated data, and falsehoods do not make for good
>policy regardless of the Party in power.

Agreed! It would be great if you'd follow through on that and give up on the fossil fuel funded falsehoods that make up the climate change denial industry, but I have a feeling that your politics will never let you do that.

No Bill, a little thing called reality won't let me do that. fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040. The growth of renewables cannot keep pace with the growth of demand for energy necessitating the continued use of coal, gas and oil. I know this hurts your feelings, sorry.

[gowlerk 1,952]

Quote

fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Seems unlikely. Where did that tidbit come from?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

gowlerk

Quote

fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Seems unlikely. Where did that tidbit come from?

Ernest Muniz, Obama's DoE Secretary.

[gowlerk 1,952]

brenthutch

***

Quote

fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Seems unlikely. Where did that tidbit come from?

Ernest Muniz, Obama's DoE Secretary.


Do you have a source with some context?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[airdvr 200]

billvon

>Regulations based on manipulated data, and falsehoods do not make for good
>policy regardless of the Party in power.

Agreed! It would be great if you'd follow through on that and give up on the fossil fuel funded falsehoods that make up the climate change denial industry, but I have a feeling that your politics will never let you do that.

Sorry Bill. Maybe when you're a bit older you'll begin to see a pattern...

In 1970 these were the predictions;

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

So...BTDT.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,464]

Quote

No Bill, a little thing called reality won't let me do that. fossil fuels are projected to supply 80% of US energy needs through 2040.

Right. By that time, renewables will make up about 15% of our total energy mix (up from about 6% today.) Heading in the right direction, but slowly.

And the emissions that result from the burning of those fossil fuels will increase CO2 concentrations, which will also increase warming. (That's science.)