3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No actually I'm just the opposite, I will embrace wind, solar and unicorn farts as soon as they become economically viable.  If the adaptation of renewables were to lower energy costs instead of causing them to skyrocket, I would be for renewables, unfortunately they do not.  I look to Germany as a cautionary tale and their aggressive adaptation of wind and solar.  Results?  Skyrocketing energy costs and a GROWING carbon footprint.  

I helped install the gas lines on this job. Obamas little pet project. He even made a cameo appearance. If you look into the monies involved the powers that be made a killing at the taxpayer and elec. users expense. Ain't putting out squat for the dollar cost per kwh's. compared to a new clean natural gas fired powerhouse. Now. If they start incorporating molten salt storage it might be a different animal. https://www.masterresource.org/ivanpah-solar-plant/ivanpah-solar-fail/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Bill how can you say my SUV is not economically viable?  My wife wanted it, we could afford it, with two kids and an 80lb yellow lab we kinda needed it.  Best of all we did not need government subsidies (unlike Tesla owners).  

BTW I still want to know where your figure of "hundreds of billions" of damage from global warming comes from, especially since Dr Roger Pielke has conclusively shown that the four horsemen of the global warming apocalypse (floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires) have yet to darken our doorstep and that the increased costs of weather related disasters is a function of development, and inflation rather than an increase in frequently, duration or intensity of the phenomenon in question.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 My wife wanted it, we could afford it, with two kids and an 80lb yellow lab we kinda needed it.  Best of all we did not need government subsidies (unlike Tesla owners).  

AND, fuel for it is dirt cheap right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bill how can you say my SUV is not economically viable?  My wife wanted it, we could afford it, with two kids and an 80lb yellow lab we kinda needed it.  

Because other vehicles are cheaper.  Which is the same reason you claimed that renewables are "economically infeasible."

Quote

Best of all we did not need government subsidies (unlike Tesla owners).

Oh, I bet you like your cheap gas, which is very much subsidized by the government.  From wars for oil to land giveaways to tax breaks, you get lots of subsidies to help you get and run your expensive, fancy car.  Just like Tesla owners.

Quote

BTW I still want to know where your figure of "hundreds of billions" of damage from global warming comes from

From the Trump administration.  The administration released a national climate assessment report back in November of 2018 detailing the costs.

Here's a Popular Mechanics article on it:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a25309806/climate-change-us-economy-effects/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your article says that something MIGHT happen sometime in the future, you claimed that it is happening now, big difference.  I am citing peer reviewed scientific publications and a detailed statistical analysis, you are quoting a magazine I buy in the super market 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Your article says that something MIGHT happen sometime in the future, you claimed that it is happening now, big difference.  I am citing peer reviewed scientific publications and a detailed statistical analysis, you are quoting a magazine I buy in the super market 

Actually I am quoting the Trump administration, one of the biggest denial organizations in the business.  The PM article was just a convenient summary.

However, if you want what it is costing us RIGHT NOW, the best estimate we have is from the GAO, which estimates $350 billion over the last ten years - and most of that impact has come recently.

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Again, you are talking of something that MIGHT (or might not) happen in the future.  As Niels Bohr said "it's very hard to predict, especially the future". I am citing current statistics you are trying to read a crystal ball.  I hope I don't have to remind you of the countless failed predictions of global warming alarmists.  I thought, for sure, that this fever would have broken by now but I see I am wrong.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

countless failed predictions of global warming alarmists.

Sigh....out comes the bullshit again. The glaciers are melting, the sea is rising, the average air temp is rising, the average sea temp is rising. All facts, not predictions. The last time you spent any significant time on this here you were all about how plants were going to thrive in the modified atmosphere. This year your denial is of a somewhat different flavour. But nothing has really changed much. The National Acadeny of Science still says you are wrong. Because you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Again, you are talking of something that MIGHT (or might not) happen in the future.  As Niels Bohr said "it's very hard to predict, especially the future". I am citing current statistics you are trying to read a crystal ball.  

And again, the GAO report details what happened over the past ten years.  Not what MIGHT happen.  You can pretend that all those effects aren't happening, but that's pretty foolish.

Quote

I hope I don't have to remind you of the countless failed predictions of global warming alarmists.  I thought, for sure, that this fever would have broken by now but I see I am wrong.

?? The predictions of the IPCC - and of earlier researchers - have been pretty accurate.  All the predictions of the coming cooling by deniers . . .  never happen.

Here's an article by Forbes (a very much not left wing publication) on climate model predictions.

========================

Mar 15, 2017, 10:00am

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Ethan Siegel

Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right. . . .

Their major result, from 1967?

"According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C."

What we've seen from the pre-industrial revolution until today matches that extremely well. We haven't doubled CO2, but we have increased it by about 50%. Temperatures, going back to the first measurements of accurate global temperatures in the 1880s, have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.

=====================

Not bad for a 50 year old model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Again, you are talking of something that MIGHT (or might not) happen in the future. 

There is not an infinite supply of coal / gas  / other fossil fuel.

 

Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

 

Again - I don't get your logic if you think that we won't, at SOME POINT, run out of fossil fuels. Arguing when that will happen is the next step, but do we at least agree on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, billvon said:

Actually I am quoting the Trump administration, one of the biggest denial organizations in the business.  The PM article was just a convenient summary.

However, if you want what it is costing us RIGHT NOW, the best estimate we have is from the GAO, which estimates $350 billion over the last ten years - and most of that impact has come recently.

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-720

From your article: Examples of Potential Economic Effects of Climate Change by 2100

I don't mean to suggest that weather related natural disasters don't happen, they do, just as they did a hundred years ago.  There has been NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires and the rate of sea level rise.

Polar bears?  Still here.  Maldives?  Still here.  Snow a thing of the past?  Turn around and look up in the California mountains.

"The whole aim of climate science is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yoink said:

There is not an infinite supply of coal / gas  / other fossil fuel.

 

Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

 

Again - I don't get your logic if you think that we won't, at SOME POINT, run out of fossil fuels. Arguing when that will happen is the next step, but do we at least agree on that?

Yes we can agree with that.  Some folks think we are going to run out of fossil fuels like someone flipping a switch, we won't.  As fossil fuels (or any commodity for that matter) become more scarce their price will rise.  As that happens other energy sources begin to look more attractive, effecting a smooth transition driven by economics not some top-down cram down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, billvon said:

However, if you want what it is costing us RIGHT NOW, the best estimate we have is from the GAO, which estimates $350 billion over the last ten years - and most of that impact has come recently.

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-720

Actually Bill, it doesn’t look like that’s what it said. From skimming the outline it says $350bn cost from extreme weather and fire events. Some extreme weather and fire would happen anyway, you can’t attribute the whole cost to climate change. 

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Polar bears?  Still here.  Maldives?  Still here.  Snow a thing of the past?  Turn around and look up in the California mountains.

No one can prove one way or the other if weather events are more intense than they otherwise would be. And no one here is claiming that it can be proven, even though you think you are making points by pointing out that fact. However, it can not be disputed that sea level is rising, average temperature is rising and glaciers are retreating. In other words all the indicators that we can rely on are showing a warming climate. Your anecdotes about polar bears are meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

No one can prove one way or the other if weather events are more intense than they otherwise would be. And no one here is claiming that it can be proven, even though you think you are making points by pointing out that fact. However, it can not be disputed that sea level is rising, average temperature is rising and glaciers are retreating. In other words all the indicators that we can rely on are showing a warming climate. Your anecdotes about polar bears are meaningless.

Sea level is rising, at the same rate it has since records began.  Temperatures have risen, slightly, melting glaciers and revealing artifacts from previous eras that were warmer than today, when CO2 levels were low.  My anecdote about polar bears is spot on.  It reveals the hyperbolic nonsense of the warmist community.  Al Gore told us polar bears were on their way to extinction, AOC says that we LITERALLY have only twelve years left to save the planet.....they're both wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Sea level is rising, at the same rate it has since records began.  Temperatures have risen, slightly, melting glaciers and revealing artifacts from previous eras that were warmer than today, when CO2 levels were low.  My anecdote about polar bears is spot on.  It reveals the hyperbolic nonsense of the warmist community.  Al Gore told us polar bears were on their way to extinction, AOC says that we LITERALLY have only twelve years left to save the planet.....they're both wrong.

If that is the level of research you are basing your position on it is pointless for me to respond. You obviously have no interest in looking at this as anything more than a right versus left political level argument. Al Gore and AOC do not run the National Academy of Science. I prefer their depth of research and knowledge over the shallowness you are expressing.

 

https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Again, you are talking of something that MIGHT (or might not) happen in the future.  As Niels Bohr said "it's very hard to predict, especially the future". I am citing current statistics you are trying to read a crystal ball.

Odd, since you started this whole weaseling of a thread about what wouldn't be possible in the future.

You went from physics preventing improvement.

Then you went to economics not making it feasible.

Then you went to it not being feasible at a price you are willing to pay.

You'll take any position as long as you don't have to change your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Odd, since you started this whole weaseling of a thread about what wouldn't be possible in the future.

You went from physics preventing improvement.

Then you went to economics not making it feasible.

Then you went to it not being feasible at a price you are willing to pay.

You'll take any position as long as you don't have to change your opinion.

No, I'm pretty sure that I started this thread about how the GND was magical thinking.  Any thread drift was in reply to other respondents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

No, I'm pretty sure that I started this thread about how the GND was magical thinking.  Any thread drift was in reply to other respondents.

You started it by posting a portion of a fluff piece of a denier without adding your own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, I'm pretty sure that I started this thread about how the GND was magical thinking.  Any thread drift was in reply to other respondents.

And included an opinion piece that has since been shown to have some pretty glaring flaws.  Which were then identified.  That's not really thread drift; that's actually a direct response to your original post.

And then you tried to switch it to an AOC attack.

So drift away.  But complaining about your own thread drift isn't likely to get you any victim points.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You started it by posting a portion of a fluff piece of a denier without adding your own opinion.

Obviously I'm not the only on who thought the GND was a load of horse shit, it got exactly ZERO votes in the senate, even its co sponsors were too embarrassed to support it.

Edited by brenthutch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, after all, congresscritters are so very simple that there can only be a single binary reason why they do anything. And what they vote on is always entirely transparent, with no attempt to posture.

Just like the rest of the world, binary answers are always right, and the person doesn't exist who can't be reduced to a caricature of themselves -- one that someone else draws, no one should ever get control of their own description, after all.

/sarcasm

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, normiss said:

Obama protections restored

It's interesting how The Don seems to lose every legal challenge.

Yeah, by an Obama-appointed judge, no less. Who, apparently, doesn't understand how Executive Orders work. They can be reversed by a sitting POTUS. This battle isn't over. Take it to the SCOTUS if need be. And no, The Don isn't losing every legal challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3