Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
9,650
659
128
Gurley, Al
Clean renewable energy is doing well thank you very much.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/
Renewable energy was the biggest contributor to Germany’s electricity supply in 2014, with nearly 26 percent of the country’s power generation coming from clean sources. That’s according to Berlin-based think-tank Agora Energiewende.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar

After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states -- in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
10,276
229
78
39
Florence, AL
Clean renewable energy is doing well thank you very much.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/
Renewable energy was the biggest contributor to Germany’s electricity supply in 2014, with nearly 26 percent of the country’s power generation coming from clean sources. That’s according to Berlin-based think-tank Agora Energiewende.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar

After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states -- in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.

So, then, still unable to stand on its own merit.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Clean renewable energy is doing well thank you very much.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/
Renewable energy was the biggest contributor to Germany’s electricity supply in 2014, with nearly 26 percent of the country’s power generation coming from clean sources. That’s according to Berlin-based think-tank Agora Energiewende.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar

After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states -- in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.
One big benefit to the fusion reactor is that it pretty much resolves the energy density issues associated with renewables.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,210
2,587
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
So, then, still unable to stand on its own merit.
I guess just like fossil fuels? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_5572346.html


Over the past five years, the Obama administration has repeatedly called for cutting fossil fuel subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other incentives. But the amount of money the federal government forfeits through subsidies has increased steadily over that time period, reaching $18.5 billion last year, according to a new report from the environmental group Oil Change International.

That total is up from $12.7 billion in 2009, largely because oil and gas production has increased in the United States. Next year, domestic oil production is expected to reach the highest level since 1972. The Obama administration regularly touts its "all of the above" energy strategy, which includes increased oil and gas production.

The Oil Change report includes a variety of subsidies in its accounting, including tax breaks, incentives for production on federal lands (such as royalty fees that haven't been adjusted in 25 years) and tax deductions for clean-up costs. And if state subsidies for oil, gas and coal production are also included, the total value climbs to $21.6 billion for 2013. Here's how that breaks down:
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,017
6,345
253
Mountainous Northern California
I don't care if you're impressed with my sources or not. There is factual information there that you elected to dismiss out of hand because the source failed your ideological purity test. i.e. genetic fallacy.



If you did know, then you would realize that this is not an example of an argumentum ad hominem. Here it is in it's most basic form:

A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about A
Therefore X is false

This:

"The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem."

is blunt statement of fact.

Do you know the definition of denialism?



In this case, the graph is present the instrumental temperature record. That's why the x-axis only goes as far back as 1850.

Of course, you can go back further using proxy reconstructions, but these will be less precise by nature:


Just look at the range of uncertainty the further back you go!



Ridiculous.



Name examples. Let's see those models.



Duly noted. Go look up the definition of denialist. Hopefully your sophistry will become obvious to you.
I can tell you went to Auburn.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
10,276
229
78
39
Florence, AL
Touche. :)


I guess that's just what happens when you allow an ever-growing precedent of Federal Government influence over free-market dynamics.

Ideally, all of the power for the rise and fall a particular product/service/industry would lie completely with the suppliers (companies creating and/or selling) and demanders (consumers). Unfortunately, far, far too much of that power lies in the pockets of politicians. Once that paradigm is in place, then suppliers become less and less answerable to the demanders. Rather than having to work hard to please the consumers, all they really have to do is please a few politicians.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Touche. :)


I guess that's just what happens when you allow an ever-growing precedent of Federal Government influence over free-market dynamics.

Ideally, all of the power for the rise and fall a particular product/service/industry would lie completely with the suppliers (companies creating and/or selling) and demanders (consumers). Unfortunately, far, far too much of that power lies in the pockets of politicians. Once that paradigm is in place, then suppliers become less and less answerable to the demanders. Rather than having to work hard to please the consumers, all they really have to do is please a few politicians.
Two comments on this topic:

(1) Our economy is largely driven by fossil fuels. A $20B investment in driving a $17T economy seems like a decent investment.
(2) Without debating what is and isn't a subsidy, it's interesting to look at energy subsidies on a per unit basis. Here is one link with a chart. There are others readily available out there, and they all show the subsidies for "clean energy" being astronomically higher on a per unit basis.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/eia-releases-new-subsidy-report-subsidies-for-renewables-increase-186-percent/
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,017
6,345
253
Mountainous Northern California
If there had been an actual argumentum ad hominem, sure.
So then you have to make a direct argument to be a fallacy and implying something without actually saying it is not really an ad hominem.

Like this:

x does not endorse our point of view

x takes money from y

x is a denier (as in denying reality as proven by easily verifiable facts, which suggests that anyone who views the same data and comes to a different conclusion even when well-reasoned in not acting rationally - or maybe they are on the take!)

There is no direct accusation, sure. However, what do you think when you hear someone took oil and gas or coal industry money? That perhaps they might be a shill? That's fine if you can also show the science is wrong, but simply pointing out the ties does nothing in regards to the science.

Certainly, not disclosing potential conflicts of interest is an entirely different matter. But for someone who follows the generally accepted rules in revealing funding that is not an issue.

But OK, I get it. You are well entrenched and no amount of scientific argument or reasoning or questioning the data and models is going to get you to be skeptical. You are a true blue believer. For you the debate is over. Your mind is closed. Good for you.
 
Last edited:

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
One question on subsidies for fossil fuels: How much of the subsidy for exploration should be attributed to our collective interest in national defense?
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
17,551
1,877
173
Hooterville, Vir.
I think this is the part where I suggest nobody should get any subsidies from the Federal or state governments. I am not at all opposed to solar, wind, fission, fusion (if somebody can do it) or carbon-based. I just do not want any government subsidizing any industry, generally. I'm an advocate of economic Darwinism. "Root, hog or die," as Honest Abe used to say.

When I restarted this discussion, my post was about the sun cooling off (relatively) in the next decade and a half, so in 2030, if the astrophysicists are correct, we might wish we had burnt more carbon-based energy sources. The last Little Ice Age was not much fun for folks in the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
So then you have to make a direct argument to be a fallacy and implying something without actually saying it is not really an ad hominem.
A logical fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.

Like this:

x does not endorse our point of view

x takes money from y

x is a denier (as in denying reality as proven by easily verifiable facts, which suggests that anyone who views the same data is comes to a different conclusion even when well-reasoned in not acting rationally)
Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence. Pretty cut and dry.

There is no direct accusation, sure. However, what do you think when you hear someone took oil and gas or coal industry money? That perhaps they might be a shill? That's fine if you can also show the science is wrong, but simply pointing out the ties does nothing in regards to the science.

Certainly, not disclosing potential conflicts of interest is an entirely different matter. But for someone who follows the generally accepted rules in revealing funding that is not an issue.
I agree. Allow me to quote myself:

"I didn't say anything about whether he was correct or not. That is rightfully evaluated by other scientists who are experts in that area of research. He did call his papers "deliverables,"though. That should raise some red flags.

But, that Soon took funding from fossil fuel interests and failed to disclose these funds to the journals that published his research, a big no-no in academia, is a fact. This is an absolute pertaining to professional ethics in the world of research."

But OK, I get it. You are well entrenched and no amount of scientific argument or reasoning or questioning the data and models is going to get you to be skeptical. You are a true blue believer. For you the debate is over. Your mind is closed. Good for you.
LOL
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,210
2,587
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
I think this is the part where I suggest nobody should get any subsidies from the Federal or state governments. I am not at all opposed to solar, wind, fission, fusion (if somebody can do it) or carbon-based. I just do not want any government subsidizing any industry, generally. I'm an advocate of economic Darwinism. "Root, hog or die," as Honest Abe used to say.
Amen, though I do feel that some strategic investments from the Government can be appropriate. NASA for instance has far delivered far more than we've put it. These subsidies however feel like they are just lining pockets of billionaires

When I restarted this discussion, my post was about the sun cooling off (relatively) in the next decade and a half, so in 2030, if the astrophysicists are correct, we might wish we had burnt more carbon-based energy sources. The last Little Ice Age was not much fun for folks in the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere.
I haven't looked into this claim though I've seen quite a few headlines debunking it I'll admit I haven't really dove in yet
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
I think this is the part where I suggest nobody should get any subsidies from the Federal or state governments. I am not at all opposed to solar, wind, fission, fusion (if somebody can do it) or carbon-based. I just do not want any government subsidizing any industry, generally. I'm an advocate of economic Darwinism. "Root, hog or die," as Honest Abe used to say.

When I restarted this discussion, my post was about the sun cooling off (relatively) in the next decade and a half, so in 2030, if the astrophysicists are correct, we might wish we had burnt more carbon-based energy sources. The last Little Ice Age was not much fun for folks in the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere.
...And Then There's Physics had an interesting post about the possible effects of this new Maunder Minimum.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,017
6,345
253
Mountainous Northern California
I think this is the part where I suggest nobody should get any subsidies from the Federal or state governments. I am not at all opposed to solar, wind, fission, fusion (if somebody can do it) or carbon-based. I just do not want any government subsidizing any industry, generally. I'm an advocate of economic Darwinism. "Root, hog or die," as Honest Abe used to say.

When I restarted this discussion, my post was about the sun cooling off (relatively) in the next decade and a half, so in 2030, if the astrophysicists are correct, we might wish we had burnt more carbon-based energy sources. The last Little Ice Age was not much fun for folks in the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere.
No, it wasn't (fun for them). There are some who believe solar cycles have little to no influence on temperatures here on Earth. This seems to be a recent phenomenon as growing up I had always understood that solar cycles were a strong driver of past climate changes when humans could not have possibly made a difference since we weren't around for most of it.

I wish all of this was about the science and not the politics, because it is actually a fascinating subject. Our world is a small refuge in a vast and hostile universe. Understanding our climate and the factors that contribute to it is an important endeavor to our future. Our arrogance belies the fact that our understanding is in its infancy and that there is still much to be learned. 100 years from now people will (hopefully) chuckle and be amazed at our ignorance and arrogance much like we are at the science of 1915. Think of all the advancements made since then, from medicine to astrophysics to travel to nuclear physics to meteorology and climate sciences and so on...
 
Last edited:

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
How much is it worth to wean ourselves from foreign sources of oil?
My question was more specifically related to warfare. Is federal investment in oil exploration in our national interest so we are able to defend ourselves or otherwise wage war against a hostile country?

Regarding weaning, it may not be in our best interest to use our own sources of oil before first using the oil of other countries.

Edit: Regarding your modification to my original post, is the new F-35 solar powered?
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.