Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[SSDD]

1) The avoidance of pain
2) Survival
3) Reproduction

PS, the majority of the cost of reducing our carbon emissions is not going in to the pockets of climate scientists..

How would you like to have even a small piece of 76 trillion dollars....playing with other people's money...

 

[Crick]

I already have a small piece of 76 trillion dollars that comes from other people's money. It's the salary from my job. God are stupid. And a dick.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I already have a small piece of 76 trillion dollars that comes from other people's money. It's the salary from my job. God are stupid. And a dick.

And is your job to disseminate the AGW Cult Party line?

 

[Crick]

Frank, Frank, Frank. I have a job. It has nothing to do with global warming or posting on this stupid board. The salary I am paid for it is a small part of 76 trillion dollars. I didn't say it was a small part of THE 76 trillion dollars. Get it? C'mon, try harder.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1) The avoidance of pain
2) Survival
3) Reproduction

PS, the majority of the cost of reducing our carbon emissions is not going in to the pockets of climate scientists.

How about an estimate of what the fossil fuel industry looks to lose should we shut them down over the next 30 years or so? You'd think that would motivate then to do SOMETHING. So... what have they done about it? What has been the response of the fossil fuel industries to the news( that that their own scientists told them in the early 1980s) that CO2 emissions are going to cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars and them their very existence? Nothing? Don't make me laugh.

Shutting down fossil fuels will have no effect on the US economy either, right Genius?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, Frank, Frank. I have a job. It has nothing to do with global warming or posting on this stupid board. The salary I am paid for it is a small part of 76 trillion dollars. I didn't say it was a small part of THE 76 trillion dollars. Get it? C'mon, try harder.

You said it, but you didn't say it. OK. Typical Crick response

 

[Crick]

Yeah. It was a comment expecting a certain level of intelligence from the reader Frank. I probably wouldn't have made it if I'd thought I was talking to second graders.

 

[CultureCitizen]

[

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives .......

.......Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

Self interest is indeed the answer....It is all about what is in it for me. Even Mother Theresa acted out of self interest...her actions brought her closer to her God...there was something deeply satisfying in it for her....

Once you know that self interest and what's in it for me is the driving factor behind the AGW hoax, all you need do is look at each player and see what he or she is getting out of it. For some, it is just keeping a job....publish or perish and it is well known that if you go along with the game, both publishing and grant money are easy...for some it is the limelite...for some it is political power....there are as many reasons for maintaining the AGW narrative as there are people who are maintaining it. Looking for some overarching unifying reason to keep the narrative going is a waste of time...there isn't one....other than there is something in keeping it going for each individual who is doing his part.

But then you miss the point where people might just want to breath cleaner air and drink unpoluted water ( that is still self interest) .
The biggest polluter in the world is no longer the US , but China. I expect them to take the lead in renewable energy in the comming years.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people? Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.

Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ).

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

The math has already been done. Low estimate is 76 trillion dollars. You can find the full report here....


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Westwall,
The document is a bit dated given the pace at which technology is advancing. In 5 years both storage and solar cell prices have been dropping dramatically.
My numbers follow :
Solar cells : 14 Trillion
Inverters : 7 Trillion
Storage : 5 Trillion
Misc : 3 Trillion
Total : 29 Trillion.

I am getting a levelized cost of $85 per Mw, this seems to be consistent with current calculations. Just a few years ago this cost was $120 per Mw. So I'll reiterate : we can wait 5 years for the tech to get cheaper before rushing into renewables.
Some caveats about my calculations : I assumed current nuclear and hydro facilities will still be in use ( I see no reason to decomission them ), so only 70% of energy sources would be replaced.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people? Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.

Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ).

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

The math has already been done. Low estimate is 76 trillion dollars. You can find the full report here....


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Westwall,
The document is a bit dated given the pace at which technology is advancing. In 5 years both storage and solar cell prices have been dropping dramatically.
My numbers follow :
Solar cells : 14 Trillion
Inverters : 7 Trillion
Storage : 5 Trillion
Misc : 3 Trillion
Total : 29 Trillion.

I am getting a levelized cost of $85 per Mw, this seems to be consistent with current calculations. Just a few years ago this cost was $120 per Mw. So I'll reiterate : we can wait 5 years for the tech to get cheaper before rushing into renewables.
Some caveats about my calculations : I assumed current nuclear and hydro facilities will still be in use ( I see no reason to decomission them ), so only 70% of energy sources would be replaced.

Have you been following the collapse of fossil fuel prices? You think that's good for "Alternatives"?

 

[jc456]

[

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives .......

.......Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

Self interest is indeed the answer....It is all about what is in it for me. Even Mother Theresa acted out of self interest...her actions brought her closer to her God...there was something deeply satisfying in it for her....

Once you know that self interest and what's in it for me is the driving factor behind the AGW hoax, all you need do is look at each player and see what he or she is getting out of it. For some, it is just keeping a job....publish or perish and it is well known that if you go along with the game, both publishing and grant money are easy...for some it is the limelite...for some it is political power....there are as many reasons for maintaining the AGW narrative as there are people who are maintaining it. Looking for some overarching unifying reason to keep the narrative going is a waste of time...there isn't one....other than there is something in keeping it going for each individual who is doing his part.

But then you miss the point where people might just want to breath cleaner air and drink unpoluted water ( that is still self interest) .
The biggest polluter in the world is no longer the US , but China. I expect them to take the lead in renewable energy in the comming years.

with what renewable solution?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people? Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.

Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ).

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

The math has already been done. Low estimate is 76 trillion dollars. You can find the full report here....


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Westwall,
The document is a bit dated given the pace at which technology is advancing. In 5 years both storage and solar cell prices have been dropping dramatically.
My numbers follow :
Solar cells : 14 Trillion
Inverters : 7 Trillion
Storage : 5 Trillion
Misc : 3 Trillion
Total : 29 Trillion.

I am getting a levelized cost of $85 per Mw, this seems to be consistent with current calculations. Just a few years ago this cost was $120 per Mw. So I'll reiterate : we can wait 5 years for the tech to get cheaper before rushing into renewables.
Some caveats about my calculations : I assumed current nuclear and hydro facilities will still be in use ( I see no reason to decomission them ), so only 70% of energy sources would be replaced.

Have you been following the collapse of fossil fuel prices? You think that's good for "Alternatives"?

Exactly how long do you think Saudis will be able to keep with their overproduction ?
I give it four years as a maximum , but US shale oil industry will be long dead before that. A mixed blessing : not excatly good news from the emplyment viewpoint , but good from the ecologial point of view.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people? Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.

Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ).

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

The math has already been done. Low estimate is 76 trillion dollars. You can find the full report here....


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Westwall,
The document is a bit dated given the pace at which technology is advancing. In 5 years both storage and solar cell prices have been dropping dramatically.
My numbers follow :
Solar cells : 14 Trillion
Inverters : 7 Trillion
Storage : 5 Trillion
Misc : 3 Trillion
Total : 29 Trillion.

I am getting a levelized cost of $85 per Mw, this seems to be consistent with current calculations. Just a few years ago this cost was $120 per Mw. So I'll reiterate : we can wait 5 years for the tech to get cheaper before rushing into renewables.
Some caveats about my calculations : I assumed current nuclear and hydro facilities will still be in use ( I see no reason to decomission them ), so only 70% of energy sources would be replaced.

Have you been following the collapse of fossil fuel prices? You think that's good for "Alternatives"?

Exactly how long do you think Saudis will be able to keep with their overproduction ?
I give it four years as a maximum , but US shale oil industry will be long dead before that. A mixed blessing : not excatly good news from the emplyment viewpoint , but good from the ecologial point of view.

Saudis? what? Who? US Shale dead?! Wow

You're as wrong as Paul "Wrong in the trillions column" Krugman

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ).

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

The math has already been done. Low estimate is 76 trillion dollars. You can find the full report here....


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Westwall,
The document is a bit dated given the pace at which technology is advancing. In 5 years both storage and solar cell prices have been dropping dramatically.
My numbers follow :
Solar cells : 14 Trillion
Inverters : 7 Trillion
Storage : 5 Trillion
Misc : 3 Trillion
Total : 29 Trillion.

I am getting a levelized cost of $85 per Mw, this seems to be consistent with current calculations. Just a few years ago this cost was $120 per Mw. So I'll reiterate : we can wait 5 years for the tech to get cheaper before rushing into renewables.
Some caveats about my calculations : I assumed current nuclear and hydro facilities will still be in use ( I see no reason to decomission them ), so only 70% of energy sources would be replaced.

Have you been following the collapse of fossil fuel prices? You think that's good for "Alternatives"?

Exactly how long do you think Saudis will be able to keep with their overproduction ?
I give it four years as a maximum , but US shale oil industry will be long dead before that. A mixed blessing : not excatly good news from the emplyment viewpoint , but good from the ecologial point of view.

Saudis? what? Who? US Shale dead?! Wow

You're as wrong as Paul "Wrong in the trillions column" Krugman

Indeed, precisely because of krugman : shale boomed with zirp and entered into a ponzi production scheme. But that ended with $50 per barrel prices. Production started declining by mid 2015 and will continue to decline through all 2016.
It is to be expected that the OPEC will then try to keep prices below the break-even price of shale which is around $80.
This is slightly inconvenient for renewables : electric cars need a $86 per barrel to reach break-even price with current technology.

 

[SSDD]

But then you miss the point where people might just want to breath cleaner air and drink unpoluted water ( that is still self interest) .

Then they are going about it in entirely the wrong way....the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasures out of the coffers. Nothing is going to be done about the very real, and addressable problem of pollution till the AGW hoax is put to rest.

The biggest polluter in the world is no longer the US , but China. I expect them to take the lead in renewable energy in the comming years.

Energy isn't the largest source of pollution...pretending that if we can just use renewables that the pollution problem will end is nothing more than self serving mental masturbation.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But then you miss the point where people might just want to breath cleaner air and drink unpoluted water ( that is still self interest) .

Then they are going about it in entirely the wrong way....the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasures out of the coffers. Nothing is going to be done about the very real, and addressable problem of pollution till the AGW hoax is put to rest.

The biggest polluter in the world is no longer the US , but China. I expect them to take the lead in renewable energy in the comming years.

Energy isn't the largest source of pollution...pretending that if we can just use renewables that the pollution problem will end is nothing more than self serving mental masturbation.

Let's just call them green ( renewable and recycable ) for the sake of discussion.
Anyway. China is mostly burning coal and they have a very big pollution problem. Sooner than later , they will have to address the problem or face the consequences directly in their health.
That said , I'm not pushing green tech until the levelized cost breaks the $60 per Mwh barrier ( currently it's $86).

 

[SSDD]

We are a very long way from being able to rely on renewables....there will be no viable alternative to the energy sources we use now till such time as there is a genuine profit motive in coming up with something different....you can't subsidize your way to innovation. Just take a look at the number of failures that this administration alone has financed. Subsidies, and tax breaks are not what is going to bring about a new source of energy...a real profit motive...one that will have the potential of making bazillions of dollars...and that isn't going to happen so long as there is plenty of the stuff that we are used to using now...

By the way...that $86 per MWh figure is not real....it is a fantasy number. The true cost is about double that.

 

[CultureCitizen]

We are a very long way from being able to rely on renewables....there will be no viable alternative to the energy sources we use now till such time as there is a genuine profit motive in coming up with something different....you can't subsidize your way to innovation. Just take a look at the number of failures that this administration alone has financed. Subsidies, and tax breaks are not what is going to bring about a new source of energy...a real profit motive...one that will have the potential of making bazillions of dollars...and that isn't going to happen so long as there is plenty of the stuff that we are used to using now...

By the way...that $86 per MWh figure is not real....it is a fantasy number. The true cost is about double that.

Ivanpah plant has a levelized cost of $72, the caveat is it has practically no storage capacity.
If enough batteries were added to cover 1% of the anual production the levelized cost would rise above $110.
Storage is the achiles heel of renewable. So again, I'm not pushing it until there is an acceptable proven large scale solution. Pumped hydro and compressed gas seem to be promissing , but there's nothing more than prototypes right now.

Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015

Aquion bateries : $0.21 per kwh renewable storage. Probably better than the powerwall in the long run.
Tesla Powerwall & Powerpacks Per-kWh Lifetime Prices vs Aquion Energy, Eos Energy, & Imergy
Note , I had to correct the storage figures. Storage IS VERY expensive right now

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

..a real profit motive...one that will have the potential of making bazillions of dollars...

Thank God we still have some Republican capitalism and the prospect of making bazillions to encourage the entire planet to work on it. Imagine if we had to rely on a tiny soviet design bureaus or two to solve the energy problem.

 

[westwall]

1) The avoidance of pain
2) Survival
3) Reproduction

PS, the majority of the cost of reducing our carbon emissions is not going in to the pockets of climate scientists.

How about an estimate of what the fossil fuel industry looks to lose should we shut them down over the next 30 years or so? You'd think that would motivate then to do SOMETHING. So... what have they done about it? What has been the response of the fossil fuel industries to the news( that that their own scientists told them in the early 1980s) that CO2 emissions are going to cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars and them their very existence? Nothing? Don't make me laugh.

Of course not. It's going into the pockets of their corporate masters. Duh....