Why we should listen to the 97%

[Saigon]

Todd -

I'll take that as a 'no', then.

I doubt it's a coincidence that the posters here most devoted to 'spam and run' tactics are the ones who seem to understand the least about the topic.

Do get back to us if you ever become interested in discussing the topic sensibly.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually it's precisely the opposite. European countries have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on "green energy." What did they get for it? Higher utility bills. So where's the downside from not jumping into green energy? There is no downside.



They aren't better or cheaper. They are shittier and far more expensive. Every watt of wind and solar power requires 100% backup from a conventional power source. How could that possibly be cheaper? Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now. You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early? There is no advantage.



Even the IPCC says sea level is only going to rise 1 foot in the next century. What's the cost of mitigating that? $0. Warmer temperatures mean lower utility bills. And no one has any convincing proof that droughts will be any more severe. In fact, if history shows anything, it's that a warmer world is a wetter world.



Of course. What was the cost of global warming? $0



Oh yeah, we've never had droughts before. Remember the 1930s? Was that drought caused by global warming? Is there any conclusive proof that global warming causes droughts?

Nope.



By doing what?

And utility bills have not been going up here?

Not mine.

They've only been going up because American utility companies have had "green energy" boondoggles imposed on them. Shutting down perfectly serviceable coal fired power plants causes the price of power to go up. You have to be a moron or a liberal not to understand that.

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

I'll take that as a 'no', then.

I doubt it's a coincidence that the posters here most devoted to 'spam and run' tactics are the ones who seem to understand the least about the topic.

Do get back to us if you ever become interested in discussing the topic sensibly.

You're the one who's running away, Saigon. You claimed switching to "green energy" would produce vast savings for taxpayers and consumers. I have yet to see any plausible evidence from you that such is the case.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Plenty of evidence is available, and much of it is simple common sense...as it is anytime a country or city replaces aging infrastructure with newer and more efficient infrastructure.

Much like buying a new car - you have higher repayments for some years, but you also save on fuel, and you have a car you can rely on for the next 10 years or so - rather than a sputtering heap that may fail at any moment.

But as I said earlier - if you are so obsessed with the politics of this debate that you can't even see the benefits of planning for droughts or floods or rising temperatures, you aren't likely to understand a hell of a lot of this topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

I'll take that as a 'no', then.

I doubt it's a coincidence that the posters here most devoted to 'spam and run' tactics are the ones who seem to understand the least about the topic.

Do get back to us if you ever become interested in discussing the topic sensibly.

Run away!

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Plenty of evidence is available, and much of it is simple common sense...as it is anytime a country or city replaces aging infrastructure with newer and more efficient infrastructure.

Much like buying a new car - you have higher repayments for some years, but you also save on fuel, and you have a car you can rely on for the next 10 years or so - rather than a sputtering heap that may fail at any moment.

A new car may be more reliable, but it's not cheaper. If it were we would see poor people driving new cars instead of old clunkers. Building a new power plant costs hundreds of millions of dollars. How do you recoup sufficient savings to cover the cost of building it, especially when all the new "pollution" controls make it more expensive to operate? IF the cost of replacing an older power plant with a newer one made economic sense, utility companies would do it in a heart beat. However, that point doesn't come until the costs of maintaining the plant become prohibitive, and that takes 40-50 years. These are the kinds of issues you learn about when you take a course in engineering economics. However, the typical eco-nutburger doesn't know the slightest thing about economics. That's why they are so easily conned into believing "green energy" will be cheaper.

But as I said earlier - if you are so obsessed with the politics of this debate that you can't even see the benefits of planning for droughts or floods or rising temperatures, you aren't likely to understand a hell of a lot of this topic.

What "planning" are you proposing to do that hasn't already been done? The USA is packed with reservoirs built partly to mitigate drought. We have vast grain silos filled to the brim with grain. What needs to be done that hasn't already been done? What do we need to do to prepare for a one foot increase in sea level over the next 100 years?

 

[Foxfyre]

How is it, were that the case, that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree? Do they lack your qualifications to examine and judge the evidence?

(Abraham3 actually said the quote attributed to me.)

Except that you have proven in this very thread that is not the case. The ‘vast’ majority are not predicting cataclysmic changes or changes that are going to cost us ‘billions’ and ruin our economy.

The MINORITY claim that. The majority seem to be claiming that the effects are going to be moderate.

MODERATE.

That is the problem when you go on to say things like ‘irreversible’ and other doom and gloom prophesies about AGW. The single most caustic thing about climate science is the insistence that there is a majority or consensus in it. You have found a SINGLE ’consensus’ in the belief that man is taking some part in warming the earth and then extrapolated it to an ENTIRE series of predictions of the results. THAT is the core problem and that is something that has not been addressed/ (This is FA's response.)

The quote thingee malfunctioned here FA--as it did here--and it appears that I said something that Abraham in fact said. My quarrel with the 'vast number of climate scientists who support global warming' is that the data used does not include all climate scientists, but focuses mostly on those who will return an answer the pollster is looking for.

Given how poorly all the pro AGW sites provide objective data so that we can really evaluate what is happening re the climate, I am not convinced that there has actually been a comprehensive and objective and non biased poll conducted of scientists on this subject.

But the bottom line for me is that almost ALL of the scientists promoting AGW are receiving grant monies from governments promoting AGW, from green energy companies who profit from the AGW hysteria, or from left wing extremists who for whatever reason demand that AGW become the new 'god' directing all activities on the planet.

Conversely, almost none of the scientists who do not receive pro-AGW grants and subsidies are convinced that AGW is a serious problem if they believe it is a problem at all.

The AGW religionists point to the skeptics as receiving grant monies from oil companies, etc., though they can't point to many, if any, specific climate studies funded by oil companies. And that is an oxymoron of an argument anyway as the oil companies are making out like bandits accommodating the green energy mandates so they could care less whether or not AGW is promoted as the new religion of the environmentalists.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

What "planning" are you proposing to do that hasn't already been done?

Exatly what most countries are doing - analyzing land use in terms of climate change trends. What pests might be more prevalent than they were 10 years ago? Will rainfall rise or fall? What species of trees or crops or livestock would cope best with those changes?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that Luddite-thinking means the US is a good 10 years behind other countries in this area.

Once again - the cost of denial may be very, very, very high.

A new car may be more reliable, but it's not cheaper.

In the long run, it may well be cheaper as well - we would only know that from a case-by-case analysis.

But all infrastructure needs to be replaced at some stage, and the longer the US waits before investing in infrastructure, the more expensive it may be.

It's not just the cost of buying a tidal turbine - it is the fact that you will need to buy them from countries who were on to this idea 20 years ago. They created the jobs and earn the export dollars the Luddites in the US sniff their noses at. Sure, the US can build them too, but you are 20 years behind the likes of Scotland on that learning curve.

Ok, so Germany pays more for electricity than the US does right now. Germany also produces one in every three windmills sold...and in an industry that is only just starting to real make profits.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

What "planning" are you proposing to do that hasn't already been done?

Exatly what most countries are doing - analyzing land use in terms of climate change trends. What pests might be more prevalent than they were 10 years ago? Will rainfall rise or fall? What species of trees or crops or livestock would cope best with those changes?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that Luddite-thinking means the US is a good 10 years behind other countries in this area.

Once again - the cost of denial may be very, very, very high.

So in terms of actual concrete action, what has been done?

A new car may be more reliable, but it's not cheaper.

In the long run, it may well be cheaper as well - we would only know that from a case-by-case analysis.

Such analysis are done every day. The result show that used cars are almost always cheaper than new cars unless the maintenance costs become prohibitive. A new car payment can easily be over $500/month. You'd have to have your car in shop almost every month before the cost would exceed a monthly payment on a new car. And that doesn't even consider the cost of depreciation on your new car.

But all infrastructure needs to be replaced at some stage, and the longer the US waits before investing in infrastructure, the more expensive it may be.

The "green energy" boondoggles of the Obama regime are forcing utilities to replace infrastructure long before it becomes uneconomical to operate. Some of the power plants being closed have just recently been upgraded with new pollution control equipment. No reasonable person can justifiably claim these policies will result in cheaper energy.

It's not just the cost of buying a tidal turbine - it is the fact that you will need to buy them from countries who were on to this idea 20 years ago. They created the jobs and earn the export dollars the Luddites in the US sniff their noses at. Sure, the US can build them too, but you are 20 years behind the likes of Scotland on that learning curve.

These countries aren't "earning" diddly squat because the government has to subsidize these boondoggles. They cost the taxpayers money. The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy. And according to the eco-nutburger economic ignoramuses this technology will be cheaper in the future. That means it's a better deal to wait for the price to come down. It's just like buying a flat screen TV. 5 years ago I paid $3000 for TV that would cost about $600 today. I would have been smarter to wait then buy when I did, but I wanted a flat screen now.

Ok, so Germany pays more for electricity than the US does right now. Germany also produces one in every three windmills sold...and in an industry that is only just starting to real make profits.

German loses money on every windmill it builds and installs in Germany. Lots of money.

 

[mamooth]

But the bottom line for me is that almost ALL of the scientists promoting AGW are receiving grant monies from governments promoting AGW, from green energy companies who profit from the AGW hysteria, or from left wing extremists who for whatever reason demand that AGW become the new 'god' directing all activities on the planet.

In other words, your bottom line is a deranged political conspiracy theory. That's not news. Given how deeply you've drunk of the kool-aid, why should anyone pay any more attention to you than, say, that rambling schizophrenic homeless guy and his theories?

Real scientists start with the data and reach a conclusion. Your political cult starts with a conclusion, and works backward from it, frantically cherrypicking data in a vain attempt to force the real world to match cult dogma. Shame how the real world won't cooperate with you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These AGW "Scientists" see how well the scam paid off for Al Groe and they want some too.

It's human nature

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BriPat -

What "planning" are you proposing to do that hasn't already been done?

Exatly what most countries are doing - analyzing land use in terms of climate change trends. What pests might be more prevalent than they were 10 years ago? Will rainfall rise or fall? What species of trees or crops or livestock would cope best with those changes?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that Luddite-thinking means the US is a good 10 years behind other countries in this area.

Once again - the cost of denial may be very, very, very high.

A new car may be more reliable, but it's not cheaper.

In the long run, it may well be cheaper as well - we would only know that from a case-by-case analysis.

But all infrastructure needs to be replaced at some stage, and the longer the US waits before investing in infrastructure, the more expensive it may be.

It's not just the cost of buying a tidal turbine - it is the fact that you will need to buy them from countries who were on to this idea 20 years ago. They created the jobs and earn the export dollars the Luddites in the US sniff their noses at. Sure, the US can build them too, but you are 20 years behind the likes of Scotland on that learning curve.

Ok, so Germany pays more for electricity than the US does right now. Germany also produces one in every three windmills sold...and in an industry that is only just starting to real make profits.

What pests might be more prevalent than they were 10 years ago?

Progressives leaching off the free Enterprise using Climate policy to redistribute wealth per orders from the IPCC

 

[Foxfyre]

But the bottom line for me is that almost ALL of the scientists promoting AGW are receiving grant monies from governments promoting AGW, from green energy companies who profit from the AGW hysteria, or from left wing extremists who for whatever reason demand that AGW become the new 'god' directing all activities on the planet.

In other words, your bottom line is a deranged political conspiracy theory. That's not news. Given how deeply you've drunk of the kool-aid, why should anyone pay any more attention to you than, say, that rambling schizophrenic homeless guy and his theories?

Real scientists start with the data and reach a conclusion. Your political cult starts with a conclusion, and works backward from it, frantically cherrypicking data in a vain attempt to force the real world to match cult dogma. Shame how the real world won't cooperate with you.

You're right. REAL scientists start with ALL the data and reach a conclusion based on ALL the data. They don't cherry pick data that fits a particular conclusion they need to reach in order to keep the grant money and government funding flowing to them.

It is unfortunate that so many scientists are willing to compromise their scientific integrity in order to qualify for those dollars or to achieve acceptance among their left leaning, or at least equally opportunisitic peers.

So what koolade do YOU drink that convinces you that government funded scientists are somehow more noble and believable than those who have no reason to produce a particular conclusion in order to keep the money flowing?

 

[Saigon]

The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy

You have to laugh, don't you?

With the best will in the world, BriPat, you are never going to understand this topic. You just aren't.

Amazing as it may seem, in the real world, when private companies design and make and sell products to other private companies - they make money. They pay taxes.

It's called capitalism and free enterprise - something Germany now does while the US sits on its hands pretending that this capitalism is really somehow communist.

One example - tidal turbines go for around $10 million a piece. One Scottish company just got an order for 200.

Those are jobs that you didn't want. And you think this means you are winning?

Surely even you, as blind and blinkered as you are, must realise that this is a game you lost long, long ago. The only question really is how much it will cost you to catch up when your existing infrastructure starts to backfire.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy

You have to laugh, don't you?

With the best will in the world, BriPat, you are never going to understand this topic. You just aren't.

Amazing as it may seem, in the real world, when private companies design and make and sell products to other private companies - they make money. They pay taxes.

It's called capitalism and free enterprise - something Germany now does while the US sits on its hands pretending that this capitalism is really somehow communist.

One example - tidal turbines go for around $10 million a piece. One Scottish company just got an order for 200.

Those are jobs that you didn't want. And you think this means you are winning?

Surely even you, as blind and blinkered as you are, must realise that this is a game you lost long, long ago. The only question really is how much it will cost you to catch up when your existing infrastructure starts to backfire.

Amazing as it may seem, in the real world, when private companies design and make and sell products to other private companies - they make money. They pay taxes.

It sounds so simple. How much did Solyndra pay in taxes?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.

But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.

But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.

So the answer was $0?

 

[Snookie]

It's possible that sometime in our life time that a volcanic eruption will cause global freezing. It's happened before.

Now that is something to worry about.

Have a nice day.

 

[flacaltenn]

Spencer posted a response the very next day of someone "doing it".: The Origin of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 – a Response from Ferdinand Engelbeen « Roy Spencer, PhD

No proof is posted there. Only a thoughtful engineer's opinion based on mathematical equations he poses as an argument. The engineer was taken seriously by Dr. Spencer because of his thoughtful contribution to the debate. Dr. Spencer's questions to the engineer are interspersed within the text of the argument. An argument is not proof nor can a winner of a very cordial and good debate be declared until Spencer's questions are addressed.

But the engineer didn't offer his post as proof but rather said he was 'pretty sure' because. . . .

THAT is the way debate should be conducted and not via a list of statements presented as fact that in fact have not yet been shown to be fact.

Of interest, the engineer qualified his opinion early in his argument with this:

I have reacted a few times via Anthony Watts’ weblog on your different thoughts about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Regardless if that is man made or not, I think we agree that the influence of the increase itself on temperature/climate is limited, if observable at all. But we disagree about the origin of the increase. I am pretty sure that the increase is man-made and have made a comprehensive page to show all the arguments to that at:

I did appreciate the engineer's argument however, and will file away his hypothesis among the many other opinions I've read over the years. The truth will be found only by having an open mind re ALL scholarly information presented. It won't be found by seeking out and considering only the sociopolitical opinions that we want to be true.

Are you under the impression that Spencer PROVED CO2 wasn't coming from humans? His work doesn't even suggest it.

If we want to be careful that we are considering only the opinions that we want to be true - or rejecting those we don't - you might want to have a much stronger case before rejecting the opinion of a very, very strong majority of the actual experts in the field.

Saigon had a good analogy. If 97 doctors gave you the same diagnosis and 3 opposed, how wise would it be to reject it and the treatment it required?

I personally lost a kidney because of "medical consensus".. Should have listened to the one doc who was right.

There is no 97% consensus. My challenge is to pick ONE SURVEY from the post 2011 time frame that you think indicates this --- and we will proceed to discuss the veracity of that claim..

 

[Foxfyre]

Spencer posted a response the very next day of someone "doing it".: The Origin of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 – a Response from Ferdinand Engelbeen « Roy Spencer, PhD

No proof is posted there. Only a thoughtful engineer's opinion based on mathematical equations he poses as an argument. The engineer was taken seriously by Dr. Spencer because of his thoughtful contribution to the debate. Dr. Spencer's questions to the engineer are interspersed within the text of the argument. An argument is not proof nor can a winner of a very cordial and good debate be declared until Spencer's questions are addressed.

But the engineer didn't offer his post as proof but rather said he was 'pretty sure' because. . . .

THAT is the way debate should be conducted and not via a list of statements presented as fact that in fact have not yet been shown to be fact.

Of interest, the engineer qualified his opinion early in his argument with this:

I have reacted a few times via Anthony Watts’ weblog on your different thoughts about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Regardless if that is man made or not, I think we agree that the influence of the increase itself on temperature/climate is limited, if observable at all. But we disagree about the origin of the increase. I am pretty sure that the increase is man-made and have made a comprehensive page to show all the arguments to that at:

I did appreciate the engineer's argument however, and will file away his hypothesis among the many other opinions I've read over the years. The truth will be found only by having an open mind re ALL scholarly information presented. It won't be found by seeking out and considering only the sociopolitical opinions that we want to be true.

Are you under the impression that Spencer PROVED CO2 wasn't coming from humans? His work doesn't even suggest it.

If we want to be careful that we are considering only the opinions that we want to be true - or rejecting those we don't - you might want to have a much stronger case before rejecting the opinion of a very, very strong majority of the actual experts in the field.

Saigon had a good analogy. If 97 doctors gave you the same diagnosis and 3 opposed, how wise would it be to reject it and the treatment it required?

But you continue to refuse to question whether that 97% is valid as you present it. Did you come up with that number? Or are you accepting on faith what others, of like mind as you, are telling you about that 97%.

Spencer has never claimed to have proved anything. He uses available data to show how variables do or could affect climate and insists that ALL the variables be included in the debate. Your 97% seem to be those who think only certain variables can be included in the debate while all others can be ignored.

He and the one respondent to his challenge do agree that any CO2 increase resulting from human activity has little negligible, if any, affect on the global climate. The difference of opinion between the two thoughtful gentlemen, however, is on the degree that human activity has contributed to increase in CO2.

A scientist does not hold up a biased poll or consensus as proof of anything. Like another member said, I and a couple of my loved ones have suffered from a 100% consensus of consulted doctors who got it wrong. There was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat and also a scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus. Most especially when those who do not consent are presenting the better and more credible arguments without cherry picking data to do it.