AGW Fraud: There's no such thing as "Settled Science"

[daveman]

These are the exact same lame arguments we've heard wrt seat belts, motorcycle rider helmets, air bags, second hand smoke, and a whole host of other such issues. Honestly, you are such an anti-technology whiner, it really is beyond belief.

No one here is anti-technology.

We are, however, anti-unsupportable, usustainable, unscalable, uneconomical, and unworkable technology.

You guys bitch and moan about subsidies for fossil fuels -- but wind and solar simply can't exist without them. And they never will.

Wind and solar can exist without subsidies. Subsidies were utilized to overcome inertia and get power companies to make the switch. Given that the price of wind-generated power is now below that of coal makes it ridiculous to claim they cannot profit from it. Solar has a higher initial investment but even lower maintenance and operation costs. Hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC and nuclear powers are all used at different places around the world and make a profit for their owners. Your claims that alternative energies are unsupportable, unsustainable, unscalable, uneconomical and unworkable simply have no basis.

Something for you to think about: the prices of petroleum, coal and natural gas are going up and - in the long run - will never come back down. The costs of alternative energies ARE coming down and will continue to do so for a good long while.

The price of wind energy being below coal is because it's heavily subsidized. So is solar. And neither are reliable throughout much of the country.

They can't survive without a prop from the taxpayers.

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I think it's time that folks claiming the 97% is hocum, get their asses called on it. It's a very solid number. And it's certainly enormously better than any number you've got., isn't it.

A thousand years ago, 97% of scientists believed the world was flat.

How'd that work out?

This is supposed to be science, not a middle-school popularity contest.

as little as 40 years ago 97% of geologists insisted the continents were stationary. Now the theory of continental drift is universally accepted.

97% of scientists would answer these questions affirmatively:

Aren't you tired of being looked at as a geeky, wimpy weirdo? Wouldn't you like to get even with the human race? Or, better yet, get all the people who have made fun of you all your life suddenly look up to you as a superhero out to save the planet?

Mad at the corporations for not hiring you because you can't create anything useful to them and sellable to the public? Wouldn't you like to get even with the corporations for not appreciating your idealistic and theoretical genius? Here's your chance to shut all industry down and show them who's boss.

You spent about 10 years working without pay in college. To make up for that lost time, don't you think you're owed a lot more than the salary you get as a professor? How would you like to make the big bucks from government funding? There's also a good chance to get invited to Hollywood as a highly paid adviser on disaster flicks. Lots of easy lays there too, and we know you're hard up in that department.

You were a lonely loser all through school. Now you can join a huge group of Treehuggers, including a lot of pretty young women. The membership requirements are so easy; all you have to do is agree to everything the leaders say. You know that they are 100% right anyway, so why waste time asking them hard questions when you know they will always embarrass you? It is inevitable that you will wind up slapping your head and saying, "Why didn't I think of that before opening my big mouth? Sorry I asked." The only stupid question is the one that might cause bickering in the group.

Have you hugged your tree today?

 

[PrometheusBound]

The fact that gravity exists is settled. Exactly what gravity is is not entirely settled, though we have some good ideas on the matter. The fact that AGW is happening is settled. Exactly how bad it will get, and what can be done about it - that is not entirely settled. But we do have some good ideas wrt to those issues. That is real science.

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

Whether or not the climate has always varied, and no one has ever said that it doesn't, it is very clear that the data we have is showing anthropomorphic warming. .

Data is plural. If you can't do advanced English, you can't do advanced science. Your cult is a product of dumbed-down education, which includes all students, not just the obviously ignorant ones. Student is an anagram of stunted.

 

[bripat9643]

Wind and solar can exist without subsidies.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Now we know you're smoking crack!

Subsidies were utilized to overcome inertia and get power companies to make the switch.

"Inertia" must be a euphemism meaning "the laws of physics."

Given that the price of wind-generated power is now below that of coal makes it ridiculous to claim they cannot profit from it.

More evidence that you're smoking crack. For this to be even remotely true you would have to ignore the fact that all wind power requires 100% backup from a fossil fuel fired power plant. How can wind power be cheaper than coal when you have to include the price of coal fired power plants?

Solar has a higher initial investment but even lower maintenance and operation costs.

You're delusional about the maintenance and operations costs. The depreciation of the plant exceeds the operation costs of coal fired plants.

Hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC and nuclear powers are all used at different places around the world and make a profit for their owners.

Hydro electric and nuclear have always been economical competitive. However, there's little potential for expanding hydroelectric and eco-nutburgers like you have waged war on nuclear making it virtually impossible to get any new plants built. Geothermal and OTEC are insignificant.

Your claims that alternative energies are unsupportable, unsustainable, unscalable, uneconomical and unworkable simply have no basis.

Hydroelectric and nuclear are not "alternative energy sources." The statement applied to wind and solar is highly accurate.

Something for you to think about: the prices of petroleum, coal and natural gas are going up and - in the long run - will never come back down. The costs of alternative energies ARE coming down and will continue to do so for a good long while.

Wind and solar will never replace oil as an energy source for transportation.

 

[orogenicman]

WRONG. The climate has always changed. Man's role in this change, if any, however, is NOT settled.

To claim it is is a matter of faith.

Whether or not the climate has always varied, and no one has ever said that it doesn't, it is very clear that the data we have is showing anthropomorphic warming. .

Data is plural. If you can't do advanced English, you can't do advanced science. Your cult is a product of dumbed-down education, which includes all students, not just the obviously ignorant ones. Student is an anagram of stunted.

This, of course, assumes that scientists NEVER make grammatical or spelling errors. You haven't read too many science periodicals, have you?

You do realize that Prometheus was the Greek cultural hero from which the Jews stole the idea that god created man from clay, right? According to Greek mythology, Prometheus made man from clay, and gave man fire, which really pissed off the other gods. So they bound him to a rock and let an eagle eat his liver, which grew back each day, adding to his torment. What part of that story do you find plausible?

 

[orogenicman]

No one here is anti-technology.

We are, however, anti-unsupportable, usustainable, unscalable, uneconomical, and unworkable technology.

You guys bitch and moan about subsidies for fossil fuels -- but wind and solar simply can't exist without them. And they never will.

Wind and solar can exist without subsidies. Subsidies were utilized to overcome inertia and get power companies to make the switch. Given that the price of wind-generated power is now below that of coal makes it ridiculous to claim they cannot profit from it. Solar has a higher initial investment but even lower maintenance and operation costs. Hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC and nuclear powers are all used at different places around the world and make a profit for their owners. Your claims that alternative energies are unsupportable, unsustainable, unscalable, uneconomical and unworkable simply have no basis.

Something for you to think about: the prices of petroleum, coal and natural gas are going up and - in the long run - will never come back down. The costs of alternative energies ARE coming down and will continue to do so for a good long while.

The price of wind energy being below coal is because it's heavily subsidized. So is solar. And neither are reliable throughout much of the country.

They can't survive without a prop from the taxpayers.

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

Conventional power generation has NEVER been subsidized? Ever? Are you sure?

 

[daveman]

Wind and solar will never replace oil as an energy source for transportation.

Government Motors is pleased to announce the SailCar will be available in 2015 and mandatory in 2020.

 

[daveman]

Wind and solar can exist without subsidies. Subsidies were utilized to overcome inertia and get power companies to make the switch. Given that the price of wind-generated power is now below that of coal makes it ridiculous to claim they cannot profit from it. Solar has a higher initial investment but even lower maintenance and operation costs. Hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC and nuclear powers are all used at different places around the world and make a profit for their owners. Your claims that alternative energies are unsupportable, unsustainable, unscalable, uneconomical and unworkable simply have no basis.

Something for you to think about: the prices of petroleum, coal and natural gas are going up and - in the long run - will never come back down. The costs of alternative energies ARE coming down and will continue to do so for a good long while.

The price of wind energy being below coal is because it's heavily subsidized. So is solar. And neither are reliable throughout much of the country.

They can't survive without a prop from the taxpayers.

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

Conventional power generation has NEVER been subsidized? Ever? Are you sure?

Why should I be sure of something I never claimed?

Hint: Read what I actually write, not what you WANT me to have written. You look less foolish that way.

 

[Abraham3]

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

The opinion of environmentalists is not what makes them alternative. None of the three produce greenhouse gases. That is what makes them 'alternative'.

 

[Abraham3]

The price of wind energy being below coal is because it's heavily subsidized. So is solar. And neither are reliable throughout much of the country.

They can't survive without a prop from the taxpayers.

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

Conventional power generation has NEVER been subsidized? Ever? Are you sure?

Why should I be sure of something I never claimed?

Hint: Read what I actually write, not what you WANT me to have written. You look less foolish that way.

Why do you need guns?

 

[Abraham3]

Data is plural. If you can't do advanced English, you can't do advanced science. Your cult is a product of dumbed-down education, which includes all students, not just the obviously ignorant ones. Student is an anagram of stunted.

Now that was just stupid. Every bit of it. "Advanced English"?!?!? Wow...

 

[Abraham3]

Wind and solar can exist without subsidies.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Now we know you're smoking crack!

Subsidies were utilized to overcome inertia and get power companies to make the switch.

"Inertia" must be a euphemism meaning "the laws of physics."

More evidence that you're smoking crack. For this to be even remotely true you would have to ignore the fact that all wind power requires 100% backup from a fossil fuel fired power plant. How can wind power be cheaper than coal when you have to include the price of coal fired power plants?

You're delusional about the maintenance and operations costs. The depreciation of the plant exceeds the operation costs of coal fired plants.

Hydro electric and nuclear have always been economical competitive. However, there's little potential for expanding hydroelectric and eco-nutburgers like you have waged war on nuclear making it virtually impossible to get any new plants built. Geothermal and OTEC are insignificant.

Your claims that alternative energies are unsupportable, unsustainable, unscalable, uneconomical and unworkable simply have no basis.

Hydroelectric and nuclear are not "alternative energy sources." The statement applied to wind and solar is highly accurate.

Something for you to think about: the prices of petroleum, coal and natural gas are going up and - in the long run - will never come back down. The costs of alternative energies ARE coming down and will continue to do so for a good long while.

Wind and solar will never replace oil as an energy source for transportation.

When a barrel of oil is going for $1,000, lots of alternatives become feasible. Long before that, wind and solar will be mainstream power sources. Thermal storage and other technologies will provide buffers to smooth out supply; as will growth of scale - more locations provide more reliable power.

The only thing that is needed to make alternatives the primary is that people pay for them. As the price of alternatives drop and the price of fossil fuels rise... guess what happens?

 

[daveman]

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

The opinion of environmentalists is not what makes them alternative. None of the three produce greenhouse gases. That is what makes them 'alternative'.

You don't get to redefine words. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are mainstream sources. Period.

 

[daveman]

Conventional power generation has NEVER been subsidized? Ever? Are you sure?

Why should I be sure of something I never claimed?

Hint: Read what I actually write, not what you WANT me to have written. You look less foolish that way.

Why do you need guns?

WTF are you babbling about?

 

[orogenicman]

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

The opinion of environmentalists is not what makes them alternative. None of the three produce greenhouse gases. That is what makes them 'alternative'.

You don't get to redefine words. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are mainstream sources. Period.

So what? Do you have a point?

 

[orogenicman]

The price of wind energy being below coal is because it's heavily subsidized. So is solar. And neither are reliable throughout much of the country.

They can't survive without a prop from the taxpayers.

Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are not alternative. Environmentalists oppose all three.

Conventional power generation has NEVER been subsidized? Ever? Are you sure?

Why should I be sure of something I never claimed?

Hint: Read what I actually write, not what you WANT me to have written. You look less foolish that way.

You seem to be complaining that alternative energy sources are being subsidized, but say nothing of the fact that conventional power sources have been subsidized for decades. Don't you think that is being a bit hypocritical, if not foolish?

 

[Saigon]

You would be hard pressed to deny that a very strong majority of people who believe climate change is a consipiracy are politically conservative. You'd be even more hard pressed to deny the same is not true of those who believe evolution is a lie.

This is it in a nutshell.

And this is something that actually all posters know to be true, as well.

We know for a fact that most moderate conservative governments confirm AGW.

We also know for a fact that almost no right-wing extremists confirm AGW.

On this board we know that most of our Sceptical posters are extremely right wing.

I don't even know why people would argue against something that everyone knows is true.

 

[bripat9643]

You would be hard pressed to deny that a very strong majority of people who believe climate change is a consipiracy are politically conservative. You'd be even more hard pressed to deny the same is not true of those who believe evolution is a lie.

This is it in a nutshell.

And this is something that actually all posters know to be true, as well.

We know for a fact that most moderate conservative governments confirm AGW.

We also know for a fact that almost no right-wing extremists confirm AGW.

On this board we know that most of our Sceptical posters are extremely right wing.

I don't even know why people would argue against something that everyone knows is true.

We know for a fact that anyone who believes that the opinions of politicians constitute some kind of informed scientific expertise is an idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about science.

 

[bripat9643]

Wind and solar can exist without subsidies.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Now we know you're smoking crack!



"Inertia" must be a euphemism meaning "the laws of physics."

More evidence that you're smoking crack. For this to be even remotely true you would have to ignore the fact that all wind power requires 100% backup from a fossil fuel fired power plant. How can wind power be cheaper than coal when you have to include the price of coal fired power plants?

You're delusional about the maintenance and operations costs. The depreciation of the plant exceeds the operation costs of coal fired plants.

Hydro electric and nuclear have always been economical competitive. However, there's little potential for expanding hydroelectric and eco-nutburgers like you have waged war on nuclear making it virtually impossible to get any new plants built. Geothermal and OTEC are insignificant.



Hydroelectric and nuclear are not "alternative energy sources." The statement applied to wind and solar is highly accurate.

Something for you to think about: the prices of petroleum, coal and natural gas are going up and - in the long run - will never come back down. The costs of alternative energies ARE coming down and will continue to do so for a good long while.

Wind and solar will never replace oil as an energy source for transportation.

When a barrel of oil is going for $1,000, lots of alternatives become feasible. Long before that, wind and solar will be mainstream power sources.

Wind a solar are competing against coal, not oil. The USA has enough coal to last for at least 250 years. There is simply no economic reason other than the Chicken Little hysterics of the global warming cult to switch to wind or solar.

Thermal storage and other technologies will provide buffers to smooth out supply; as will growth of scale - more locations provide more reliability power.

Storage mechanisms will only make them less cost competitive.

The only thing that is needed to make alternatives the primary is that people pay for them. As the price of alternatives drop and the price of fossil fuels rise... guess what happens?

Yeah, right, they will have to pay 5 times as much for alternatives as they now pay. It would be easier to sell ice to Eskimos that to sell consumers on that proposition.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Storage mechanisms will only make them less cost competitive.

This is a great example of what I meant by saying that some posters do not understand the topic well enough to be considered as having an opinion.

What 'storage' means here is that Solar Thermal stations could produce some electricity even AT NIGHT.

This is a massive breakthrough, and a bit of a game changer for solar by any standard. It really does shift solar from being a form of electricity production that might produce 15% of demand, to something that might produce 30% of demand....and possibly even more.

So no - storage will not make them less competitive, genius!