"Green technology pollutes the planet"

[ET]

Dave, I don't buy into the "peak oil" stuff. As I've already stated, there were multiple predictions in the last century about running out of oil and they were all wrong. Nor would I agree with such a statement - although it was probably said a bit tongue-in-cheek just to tweak someone - that we can use it all up because Jesus is coming back.

Who says we're "wasting" anything? What God put in the ground is able to provide people with inexpensive methods of transportation and heating and cooling of their homes. THE main purposes of prices in a free market is to allocate resources. When gas prices rise, people are more apt to adjust their behavior and consume less. If oil supplies or coal ever do really start to run out, then the price will go up accordingly and people will demand products or adjust their lives to consume less energy. They may walk to get places, ride a bike, carpool or buy a smaller house that doesn't require as much heating and cooling energy. In short, the best way to conserve the resources God has given us is to let the free market do its thing.

I also say explore all the alternatives we want. Just don't put a handful of bureaucrats in charge of selecting the winners and losers. My utility company allows folks to pay more on their utility bill in order to (supposedly, at least) choose to get or support electricity from wind and solar power. If folks want to do that, then that's fine with me. However, for a president or speaker or majority leader to stand up in front of a crowd and tell us that "green jobs are the future" shows nothing but arrogance and vanity that they should think they possess the knowledge of such matters. They no more know what the future holds than the guy sweeping the factory floor.

As for TVA, yes, my part of the country has benefited from it, but that doesn't mean government spent money in the best manner nor in a way that would have benefited the most people in the a way that best meets their needs. If left to choose on their own, the people of this country might have spent their money on something other than TVA projects because they deemed other pursuits more worthy of their spending. Thus, in the end, having TVA may actually be an inferior benefit, which brings me to...

Government does not need to take a role. Why would we need to it take on such a role? Do the people in D.C. possess some superior wisdom over the rest of us? Do they have some crystal ball to view the future and tell all us uneducated rubes what's best for us? The implication of your statement is that somehow the ruling class in D.C. is somehow in possession of knowledge that provides them with the ability to tell us what will be best for us in 25, 50 or 100 years. There is very little in the history of human government that provides me with any confidence that government bureaucrats can plan what's best for our future. They can't even balance a budget.

[ET]

More to think about on the silliness of some of these targets being made as a result of the climate change hysteria. From a George Will article back in 2009 (highlighting is mine): Earth's Next Last Chance

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.
***
Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.
***
The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

In an age of microwaves, electric lighting, plug-in hybrids/'lectric cars, computers, big-screen TVs, refrigerators, washers and dryers, just how does one go about consuming 1875 levels of energy with a population some 4 times the size and with a consumption that is magnitudes of order higher? With wind turbines and solar panels???? Not likely.

What would the "99%" think about all the "climate change slush fund" money floating around in government coffers going to "research" on global warming. If it were going to oil companies or drug makers, can you imagine the outcry?

[KeithE]

In an age of microwaves, electric lighting, plug-in hybrids/'lectric cars, computers, big-screen TVs, refrigerators, washers and dryers, just how does one go about consuming 1875 levels of energy with a population some 4 times the size and with a consumption that is magnitudes of order higher? With wind turbines and solar panels???? Not likely.

ET your "not likely" is very ill-informed.

Read this very conservative estimate about what 100 square yards (smaller than most roofs) of low technology (15% efficiency) PV solar collectors produce in energy.

Some quotes:

If your home is a typical residential electric customer, you and your family consume between 500 and 1000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month.

With an average efficiency of 15 percent, a square yard of solar photovoltaic cells (PV) would produce (5 kilowatt-hours of solar energy multiplied by 15% =0.75 kilowatt-hours of electric energy per day. Solar panels (PV) covering an area ten yards by ten yards (100 square yards or 900 square feet) would produce 100 x .75 = 75 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day.

Seventy-five kilowatt-hours per day is a lot of electricity for a single-family home. If part of the electricity is stored in a home battery, or is used to electrolyze water for producing hydrogen gas, and the gas is stored for use by a fuel cell when needed, then 100 square yards covered with solar panels would provide an average family with energy independence. Most detached family homes have more than 100 square yards (900 square feet) of roof, or that much space around their homes where solar panels could be installed.

75 kwh/day = 2250 kwh/month twice that needed for high-end energy users households. Read the whole article to see how conservative this estimate is.

Solar energy is much more viable than you believe in terms of capacity to power America. It is a matter of getting the cost down which comes with industrial base buildup, storage technology and transportation revolution in Electric or Hydrogen Cars.

Wind energy and biomass are even more viable in terms of adequate power.

Time to rethink your "not likelies". It is only "not likely" if the RW keeps up the propaganda and Congress derails Renewable Energy's great potential (by under-funding Renewable Energy technology development) all for keeping the fossil fuel gravy train/campaign financing going.

---------------------------------

What would the "99%" think about all the "climate change slush fund" money floating around in government coffers going to "research" on global warming. If it were going to oil companies or drug makers, can you imagine the outcry?

Oil subsidies are at least $4B a year - could be as much as $41B if you count tax breaks as well as direct subsidies.
Oil Subsidies

Global warming government research funding was $106M/year in 2011 and Republicans are trying to reduce it to $83M/year in 2012
EPA Budget
and Renewable Energy funding was at $319M/year in 2009 and less since then.
Renewable Energy Funding
So that is at most $425M/year = $0.425B. That is at most 1/10 the oil subsidies (or 1/100 of the subsidies+tax breaks)

So maybe you can imagine the "outcry" about the $4-41B/year oil subsidies for companies that regularly make more than $10B profit a quarter.
Exxon/Mobile Profits Alone are $10B/quarter and recently gave a retirement package of $400M to it's chairman (almost as much as the government spends a year for GW research and renewable energy together).

Time to rethink your "outcries" as well. You are waaaay off the mark.

[ET]

There's viable in theory, and then there's economically viable. You're an engineer like me. Any basic course in engineering economics covers such matter -- you can build a dam that wouldn't ever break and flood the valley below. It is viable in theory, but the cost is so exorbitant that it is not economically viable, so you incur some risk so as to not launch into some project that makes no economic sense.

Notice the assumptions for solar:

"if exposed to direct sunlight", "if exposed to continuous direct sunlight in an optimal geographical location for six hours a day", "If part of the electricity is stored in a home battery, or is used to electrolyze water for producing hydrogen gas, and the gas is stored for use by a fuel cell when needed"

What is the falloff in energy production if not exposed to six continuous hours of direct sunlight? What if the panels are not in an "optimal geographical location"? What if they are in a non-optimal location that often doesn't get six hours of continuous direct sunlight a day? What about the cost of hydrogen fuel cells, the biggest impediment to a hydrogen fueled car? Mucho dinero.

There's the ideal and then there's reality, just like there's what you can sell to the consumer and what you can sell to politicians who have money hand out and it doesn't matter if it goes to waste and the viability of your product is not nearly as important as the rhetorical ammunition it provides you in the next election.

Here's some quotes from a related commnetary today (12/5/2012) from a finance guy: When Graft Won't Save you, It's Called Green Energy, by John Ransom

The proof of the failure of solar power isn’t in the Solyndra bankruptcy, but in potential BKs by industry leaders like First Solar (FSLR), the largest solar company in the world.

Since May of 2008, when First Solar reached its all-time high of $311, the company has lost 90 percent of its value, falling to $31-$33.....In the meantime CEO Robert Gillette exited stage right, with $30 million thank you from the company in October of 2011.

But he didn’t leave before First Solar received federal loan guarantees and other consideration to the tune of $3.5 billion.
***
...the price per kilowatt hour for solar power electrical generation at the largest scale still hovers around $.21 per kilowatt hour, according to the website Solarbuzz.com. Old-fashioned coal-fired electrical generation only cost an average of $.0821 to $.1648 per kilowatt hour in 2007 depending on region, according to figures compiled by the Energy Information Administration. And competing alternative energy sources - like wind energy - are lower cost in most regions than solar, too. Solar's costs have to still come down substantially for a long-term boom to take hold.

...three years later, the economics of green energy make as little sense as they did back then even with generous government subsidies.

The big breakthroughs in cost-savings that have been predicted for solar haven’t come - solar still costs over $.20 per kilowatt hour, although devotees are still making brave promises of future cost savings. And while many blame oversupply in solar panels for the troubles plaguing the industry, oversupply generally isn’t a problem with industries that have actual demand.
***
In the past trailing twelve months the company has chewed through close to three-quarters of a billion dollars in levered cash-flow. Just three months ago analysts thought the company would generate earnings per share of around $10.48 according to estimates provided by Yahoo Finance. After revisions, earnings have been slashed to a consensus estimate of $4.19 for 2012.
***
For the solar industry as a whole it’s looking less and less like a handicap and more like a terminal disease.

And if First Solar can’t make it after all the subsidized loans, state incentives, money spent on lobbying and political donations, then someone ought to ask for their money back.

Taxpayers ought to be first in line for a refund.

Remember those "green jobs of the future that can't EVER be taken away"? Remember those speeches from Obama/Biden? Well, : Taxpayers Take Hit as Solar Industry Implodes, 1/4/2012

First Solar, Inc. – which the media sometimes identifies as the largest solar company in the world – laid off half its employees on Friday at its Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One project.
***
The cutbacks follow the announcement earlier in December that First Solar would eliminate 100 positions, including 60 at a research and development center in Santa Clara, Calif.
***
The company, like the entire solar industry, has survived on government grants and guarantees. Besides AVSR1, for example, the DOE partially guaranteed $1.46 billion in borrowing for its Desert Sunlight Solar Farm west of Blythe, Calif. And $967 million in DOE loans covered First Solar’s Agua Caliente Solar project in Yuma County, Ariz. Also, the U.S. Export-Import Bank backed $455.7 million in loans to First Solar for projects in Canada. Add millions of dollars more in manufacturing tax credits, state and local incentives, plus mandates to force utilities to buy renewable power, and you’ve got an industry that is wholly dependent on taxpayers, not on its own technology’s capabilities.

In another article: First Solar slashes forecast, staff & plans to flee subsidized markets, 12/14/2011

First Solar has had enough with subsidized solar markets and will bet its future on sales in countries in which solar companies that can provide low-priced equipment and engineering services will make money and stay in business, company executives said Wednesday.

In the end, one has to decide if you let such forms of energy develop based on the ability of the companies to provide a viable product or have politicians decide which products will survive based on which company is the most politically connected. For guys who can't even balance a budget, I have no faith in their ability to manipulate the future of energy production to their liking or to guide it to the best available options.

Or, to summarize most of our differences in political discussions, when it comes to solving the issues of our times, one of us places our faith in our fellow citizen to innovate and create a solution while the other has more faith in "solutions" arrived at by politicians and their subsidized servants who will impose their will on us, but all for our "common good", mind you.

Time to rethink your "outcries" as well. You are waaaay off the mark.

so, as usual, it's not the subsidies you oppose, it's that they aren't going to the "right" companies and not in the "right" amounts.

P.S. Believe it or not, I watched the first season of the Planet Green series "Greensburg". Lost track of it after the first season and didn't see the subsequent Season 2 and 3, but might catch them at some point if they rerun them. It was interesting to watch, but I think it illustrated many of the practical hurdles surrounding trying to "build green".

P.P.S. I have also researched solar water heaters for my home. Too much $$$.

[KeithE]

Agreed it will only go over in America today when it is economically viable and I said

It is a matter of getting the cost down which comes with industrial base buildup, storage technology and transportation revolution in Electric or Hydrogen Cars.

The only reason that solar has not reached a larger market is one of an inadequate industrial base, distributional& storage infrastructure and (for the moment at least) the cost of solar modules. But that cost is changing rapidly as this chart shows.


Now I do note that the chart maker does not allow for lower costs from national gas electricity or coal-fired electricity generation. Truth of the matter is that those costs will decrease as well but not as fast as solar.

That's where government can accelerate the industrial base/infrastructure over say what venture capitalists will do (ET, I do know you will disagree with this point). As for the Solandryl investment ($0.5B loan guarantees over 5 years), that was always a hedge against the shortfalls in PV raw materials (e.g. silicon) and resultant price increase circa 2004-7. That is over with and that is why Solandryl went out of business.


Justification for government subsidies of alternative energy R&D (mostly D) is both climate change mitigation and jobs creation.
Read here to compare EPA loan guarantees/Mercury enforcement jobs to Keystone XL jobs
Key Figure:


You know I wish it were not so clear cut, because these simple facts take Americans by surprise - so much so they tend to not believe the straight facts and instead fall back on ideological impressions.

Obama is missing a great opportunity to bring America out of recession while improving the habitat of our kids/grandkids.

I costed out a solar panel for my house when it was built eight years ago and it was not cost effective (breakeven point > 20 years as I remember). I think I will call a solar company to cost it out today - I betcha it is under 10 years breakeven point. I'll let you know when it is done.

[ET]

Are those jobs like the "shovel-ready" jobs that Obama laughingly admitted weren't there after using that phrase to spend BILLIONs of dollars? ? Did you intentionally overlook the article about FirstSolar, the largest solar company in the world is laying off people and moving to locations where they don't have to rely on subsidies?

Are you completely ignoring the fact that the current economic/housing mess can be directly tied to the government guaranteeing loans on mortgages? Now you want the government to manipulate the energy market with loan guarantees?

So you want to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

According to the City of Portland's (Oregon) web site, the cost of a solar water heater - independent of one to generate electricity - costs $6000-9000 just to heat your water Tax credits can cover half the cost.

Estimated savings is $150-300 for a family of 4. So best case scenario is approximately $3000 for installation with a savings of $300/yr for a family of four....a 10 year ROI, best case, if you spend $300/month heating water. Our entire utility bill is barely $300 some months, so the ROI is not there without a much bigger "alternative energy welfare check" to put the thing in.

Then there's electricity: tack on another $7000-9000 per KW for an electric system. A 2KW systems can save 15-20% on electricity.

We spend about $35-40 a month to heat water for a family of 5. We spend about $300/month on electricity on a large house (4200 sq ft), and I'm sure I can do some work on insulating the house better.

According to solarpowerrocks.com, they have an estimate of about $52000 for a 6kW solar installation. The ROI for their estimation is 29 years if one assumes a property value increase due to the solar power install, 36 years without it, and that assumes you stay in the house for 30 years while you pay off the 30 years loan assumed to be taken out to pay for the install. We have a gas water heater, so I have no idea if this scenario switches the water heater to the solar system or not. I'd rather have a gas water heater than a a solar-powered electric any day (I also note here that the Portland solar link mentions that solar - at least up there - won't heat water to the desirable temp in the winter.)

The numbers look to be about 3 years old based on the comments section, but I doubt the figures have gotten much better recently. Thanks, but no thanks.

The numbers are nowhere near adding up.

P.S. None of this takes into account the use of foam insulation in some newer houses. My A/C guy used foam insulation in the walls and roof of his house and says his A/C only runs about 15 minutes per hour on the hottest summer days that the Memphis climate can throw at him. Not cheap, but far less expensive than solar.

[ET]

Here's another couple of articles on some of these government imposed/sponsored "solutions":

Electric Car Subsidies Transferring Wealth From the Rich to the Poor?
Toyota took a loss to sell the Prius when it came out. Government Motors relies on taxpayers.

and some Republican goofiness compliments of GW Bush and fellow Republicans: Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel

I sure would love to play around with a Volt, though. Too much techno-geek in it to not make it a fascinating product. Although I'm not sure I'd care to have to subscribe to OnStar in order to enjoy playing with the smartphone app.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

Bush was an Oil man---no holds bared!

Obama is still subsurvient to his backers who are still hidden in the crap of Contributor Regulations revealing NOTHING!

We need a new and fresh bunch of Representatives and TERM LIMITS in my view!

[KeithE]

Are those jobs like the "shovel-ready" jobs that Obama laughingly admitted weren't there after using that phrase to spend BILLIONs of dollars? ?

Got some source for Obama "laughingly admitting" that?

I'll repeat that the government is offering Big Oil/Coal $4B/ year in direct subsidies and $41B/year in tax breaks.

Did you intentionally overlook the article about FirstSolar, the largest solar company in the world is laying off people and moving to locations where they don't have to rely on subsidies?

Well I notice Warren Buffet has call First Solar as one of 10 hottest stocks for 2012. In 2008 when the PV shortage came up their stock plummeted. They are hiring now as Solar energy is beginning to be economically viable. In fact, the solar industry is growing at a 30%/annum rate due to:

This decline in cost has been driven by economies of manufacturing scale, manufacturing technology improvements, and the increasing efficiency of solar cells.

Are you completely ignoring the fact that the current economic/housing mess can be directly tied to the government guaranteeing loans on mortgages? Now you want the government to manipulate the energy market with loan guarantees?

So you want to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

Excess, highly-leveraged speculation by the big financial firms coupled with the lack of regulations (and enforcement thereof) is what caused the crash. As it turned out government loan guarantees were for the financial firms not the people with the mortgages.

The loan guarantees are competitively won and is not manipulating the energy market. Just trying to even the subsidies with long standing subsidies to Big Oil/Coal.

According to the City of Portland's (Oregon) web site, the cost of a solar water heater - independent of one to generate electricity - costs $6000-9000 just to heat your water Tax credits can cover half the cost.

Estimated savings is $150-300 for a family of 4. So best case scenario is approximately $3000 for installation with a savings of $300/yr for a family of four....a 10 year ROI, best case, if you spend $300/month heating water. Our entire utility bill is barely $300 some months, so the ROI is not there without a much bigger "alternative energy welfare check" to put the thing in.

Then there's electricity: tack on another $7000-9000 per KW for an electric system. A 2KW systems can save 15-20% on electricity.

We spend about $35-40 a month to heat water for a family of 5. We spend about $300/month on electricity on a large house (4200 sq ft), and I'm sure I can do some work on insulating the house better.

According to solarpowerrocks.com, they have an estimate of about $52000 for a 6kW solar installation. The ROI for their estimation is 29 years if one assumes a property value increase due to the solar power install, 36 years without it, and that assumes you stay in the house for 30 years while you pay off the 30 years loan assumed to be taken out to pay for the install. We have a gas water heater, so I have no idea if this scenario switches the water heater to the solar system or not. I'd rather have a gas water heater than a a solar-powered electric any day (I also note here that the Portland solar link mentions that solar - at least up there - won't heat water to the desirable temp in the winter.)

The numbers look to be about 3 years old based on the comments section, but I doubt the figures have gotten much better recently. Thanks, but no thanks.

The numbers are nowhere near adding up.

Hot water heating is not the viable technology (yet). No one is suggesting that.

Electricity via solar energy is getting economically viable more and more - witness the 30% growth per year above.

Today I met with Southern Solar Energy of Huntsville. In short the cost for a turnkey solar system (everything I would need) for a 6 kw system is $35,000 (no longer $52,000) with very low if any maintenance costs. With a TVA buy of excess energy at 12 cents above the retail price per kwh, the breakeven point he quoted was 15 years (not 29 years) if the price of electricity does not go up. But since it has gone up at ~ 4% year, he felt like the breakeven point would be 12-13 years. And he expects his units will go for $25,000 by this time next year (even lower than that in the future but he refused to predict the lowest price). If I waited the 1 year, the breakeven point would be about 8 years he said but could not guarantee that. He recommended waiting a few years because PV cells are decreasing in cost radically. So I'll keep assessing the possibilities instead of dismissing it out of hand.

His solar business right now is mostly with companies who can depreciate the turnkey costs up to 30% /year and his business is booming in Huntsville's Research Park (1 installation each 3 weeks). Companies have higher electric bills and more roof area for more units.

We then talked about geothermal energy. Long story short, it would be a breakeven point of 4-5 years when compared to buying a new heat pump and/or natural gas heating. Units sized to my house would also cost $35,000. But I hope my heat pump/natural gas heating system holds up - no signs of weakening after 8 years. Also once he got to our house he knew our across street neighbors looked into geothermal when they built 5 years ago and found out our subdivison's covenant would not allow a horizontal system and city rules would not allow vertical systems at the present time due to fear of groundwater contamination unless a survey could prove no groundwater.

So I'm not interested (yet) in either system. But I'll keep an eye on solar and consider geothermal if my existing heating units dies and I can get around the current prohibitions.

P.S. None of this takes into account the use of foam insulation in some newer houses. My A/C guy used foam insulation in the walls and roof of his house and says his A/C only runs about 15 minutes per hour on the hottest summer days that the Memphis climate can throw at him. Not cheap, but far less expensive than solar.

True for the time being. But these trends showing solar / geothermal/ wind/ biomass energy increasing economic viability can be enhanced via government help with good things resulting concerning ghg emissions and lessening dependency on foreign sources. If these technologies have gotten the subsidies that oil and coal have received over the years, they could already easily be more economically viable now. Carter tried hard to start such programs but the fossil fuel industry (Big Oil, Big Coal, automobile) would not allow that and now has the RW (supposedly free marketeers) in their cabal.

[KeithE]

From USA Today: Obama jokes about 'shovel-ready projects', July 13, 2011.

Thanks, but I note the content of his speech as given in the article does not merit the title "Obama jokes..."

That's interesting that Buffet would recommend FirstSolar when they are shutting down plants and laying people off.

Your info was 3 years old when the PV shortage was in play. Besides I never could verify that First Solar laid off a lot or shut down plants. Their stock value did go down alot in that period as speculative companies are prone to do. But what goes down due to a temporary problem is often a big bargain later.

As far back as 30 or 35 years ago solar was sold as a hot water heater. An old high school church buddy of mine had solar panels on his house that his father got installed back in the late 70s or so when incentives were offered for that. On about any home improvement show on TV that I've watched, solar was mainly promoted as a hot water heater. From my exposure to the subject over my lifetime it's always been water heating that's been the "entry door" to alternative energy for housing requirements.

Times have changed.

Interesting item about the potential groundwater issue with geothermal, especially since there's all the fuss over hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas.

That drilling is a concern whether fossil fuel (fracking) or green energy (geothermal). Not unworkable with adequate indepth surveying in either case. Worse with fracking since 29 carcinogenic chemicals are shot down to break up the shale. Not so with passive geothermal.

"Big Oil, Big Coal, automobile would not allow them".....yeah, yeah, yeah, I heard that excuse back when I was in high school. There was some mythical carburetor that would let cars get 100 mpg, but "the oil companies bought up the patents and wouldn't let it be produced". I know of no "RW (supposedly free marketeers)" that have any issue with wind and solar energy EXCEPT for the propaganda that surrounds them and doesn't realistically face its shortcomings and insists on government shoving it down our throats though the fear-mongering hysteria of AGW.

One could apply that to the hysteria circulating about the cost of CO2 control.

And, ET, who is shoving wind or solar energy down our throats? Government is just trying through R&D (more limited than it should be, imo) to give you another economically viable source for energy as a hedge against fossil fuel based energy cost increases or shortages and as insurance against GW.

[KeithE]

Hey something got screwed up and I deleted ET's last post. Most of it is embedded in my last post (some at the end with Mencken and Webster quotes has been lost-my apologies). I've tried to recover it but cannot/don't know how.

It seems that since I became a Moderator it acts differently. When I looked at my last post, it showed up as being from ET with his picture. So I copied it and reposted under my name and then went back and deleted the one I thought had the wrong author, but it deleted ET's post. I think what happened was I mistakenly edited ET's post instead of quoting it interspersing my comebacks.

My apologies.

[Gene Scarborough]

"Power corrupts / absolute power corrupts absolutely" -------Moderators RULE!!

[ET]

And, ET, who is shoving wind or solar energy down our throats? Government is just trying through R&D (more limited than it should be, imo) to give you another economically viable source for energy as a hedge against fossil fuel based energy cost increases or shortages and as insurance against GW.

Oh my goodness. Really? Kyoto protocol. Any climate change conference. Government mandates on whatever level (state, local, federal) mandating so much energy be made from such-and-such a source by whenever (for one example, see the 2007 Bush energy bill about ethanol fuel mandates). Just browse any general car forum and see how many folks would choose (as in "pro-choice") to use gas with ethanol blended in it, even if the pure gas cost a few cents more.

Government is just trying through R&D (more limited than it should be, imo) to give you another economically viable source for energy as a hedge against fossil fuel based energy cost increases or shortages and as insurance against GW.

What wisdom does "government" possess to know what will be the most economically viable source of energy in the future? These are people who can't manage their own household and balance a budget (hysterical satire video!), and yet some you want me to accept the premise that somehow they know what forms of energy will be more viable in the future?

Government R&D? That's just "lobbyist directed research" or "most politically connected" research or "who's up for reelection and needs some money thrown in a direction to get you some votes" research.

Basic philosophical differences, though. You believe - it's implied by your political philosophy - that those in power over us can best direct our lives on a great many subjects. We are to be treated like children who don't know what's best for us and need to have decisions made for us. I wish for us to be adults and make our own choices (as in "pro-choice", that mantra of the American left that seems to apply to nothing else in the public policy world except abortion), and live with the the resulting consequences.


Detroit unsure over the future of green cars, 1/11/2012. I would also be willing to bet that if the EPA changed their rules to allow the high-mileage diesels like they have in Europe to be sold here in the USA, that U.S. automakers -- along with Toyota and Nissan -- would object to such changes, working the pollution angle to protect their hybrids and electrics, even though millions and millions of Americans would then have access to vehicles that could get 50 or 60 mpg and probably make demand for hybrids and electrics lower than it already is.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

It is a "no brainer" to recognize 3 basic things:

1) We are polluting this planet with current fuel sources
2) There is an end point to fossel fuels running out
3) Industrialists ALWAYS seek the most profitable route over preserving natural resources / being environmentally friendly

I live right across the river from a gigantic phospate plant (largest in the US). Smoke boils out of their stacks so there is a constant cloud of steam (I assume) above them. Were it not for EPA inspections who knows what might be in it. They produce the most concentrated Phosphoric Acid in the industry to accomplish chrome plating invented by an English scientist.

Would you want to work there if there were no protective gear and numerous safety rules to protect the environment and people? Would you want to live here if it were revealed that toxins were being released going over the Pamlico Sound / Outer Banks / Atlantic ocean and seeping into the water as it settles to earth?

You etherial theories are just that---THEORIES.

Somehow you need to get some common sense and admit---we need to be careful of the planet. When industry moves to South America and Third World Countries, the motivation is both cheap labor and fewer environmental regulations = greater profits for those who own the companies and their stockholders.

I am bored to tears with the obtuse and technical "proofs" of your theory when my own nose tells me pollution is dangerous to my health and yours as well. I am glad I don't live in LA where smog produced by fossil fuels in autos and the trapping effect of those mountains and valleys makes eyes water and obscures the nearby mountain beauty!!!!

DUH!!!!!

[KeithE]

Basic philosophical differences, though. You believe - it's implied by your political philosophy - that those in power over us can best direct our lives on a great many subjects. We are to be treated like children who don't know what's best for us and need to have decisions made for us. I wish for us to be adults and make our own choices (as in "pro-choice", that mantra of the American left that seems to apply to nothing else in the public policy world except abortion), and live with the the resulting consequences.

More accurately, my belief is that collective action (with altruistic aims) can in many instances produce better results for all in a given nation (economy of scale often in play) than people/corporations (with self interests) acting on their own. You believe there are few such instances (defense being one). Neither philosophy is fail proof or universally better. I'm more apt to explore governmental roles and you are more apt to say people/corporations will do it best when left alone. Trouble is both approaches can be flawed. People (and corporations are not people) must keep governing bodies in line (accountability, voting) and government has to hold people/corporations in line (law enforcement, regulations). One big problem these days is that of lobbying by corporations/industrial groups or labor unions interfering with accountability, elections and the legislative process.

I know regulations can get burdensome and slow progress down at times. In this instance communication era, that can be improved upon. I'm not for throwing regulations out, just sharpening them and quickening them.

Developing alternative energy, alternative cars is pro-choice. The US government funding of such technology (as meager as it is (see below*), compared to the $41B/year given to the fossil fuel industry in subsidies and tax breaks for decades) is justified to provide a choice of energy sources that are not (1) dependent on foreign oil, (2) cheaper than the tar sands (3x as expensive as crude oil), (3) less environmentally stressing that fracking with 29 carcinogenic/toxic chemicals involved, and (4) helps in the battle against global warming. No one is making that choice for you, ET. It may come to that if GW gets as bad as most scientists say it will at some point in the future. But that is outside your and my lifetime ET. In other words, you too could buy a Prius. You too could install solar energy if you so choose. Shutting off these technologies (in order to keep the status quo) is anti-choice.

*DoE 2012 budget for alternative energy:
Vehicle technology: $0.598B
Solar energy:$0.457B
Biomass: $0.341B
Nuclear: $0.754B
Energy transformation and acceleration (smart grids): $$0.550B

That is just shy of $2B/year. And to be fair there are also loan guarantees (that sometimes go sour) and there will be tax breaks given to these industries (if their lobbyists are worth a darn). But no place near what has been given to the fossil fuel industries for decades. BTW the DoE also funds "fossil energy research" at $0.453B in 2012.

EPA funding does not handle alternative energy. It does spend $1.105B/year in Clean Air and Global Climate Change.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET would probably applaude another spate of weapons of war and mass destruction~ R&D for killing quick and bloody!

[Ed Pettibone]

ET would probably applaude another spate of weapons of war and mass destruction~ R&D for killing quick and bloody!

Ed: And Gene upon what do you base you supposition about ET's applause? Why not stick with what he has written?

[David Flick]

Basic philosophical differences, though. You believe - it's implied by your political philosophy - that those in power over us can best direct our lives on a great many subjects. We are to be treated like children who don't know what's best for us and need to have decisions made for us. I wish for us to be adults and make our own choices (as in "pro-choice", that mantra of the American left that seems to apply to nothing else in the public policy world except abortion), and live with the the resulting consequences.

More accurately, my belief is that collective action (with altruistic aims) can in many instances produce better results for all in a given nation (economy of scale often in play) than people/corporations (with self interests) acting on their own. You believe there are few such instances (defense being one). Neither philosophy is fail proof or universally better. I'm more apt to explore governmental roles and you are more apt to say people/corporations will do it best when left alone. Trouble is both approaches can be flawed. People (and corporations are not people) must keep governing bodies in line (accountability, voting) and government has to hold people/corporations in line (law enforcement, regulations). One big problem these days is that of lobbying by corporations/industrial groups or labor unions interfering with accountability, elections and the legislative process.

I know regulations can get burdensome and slow progress down at times. In this instance communication era, that can be improved upon. I'm not for throwing regulations out, just sharpening them and quickening them.

KeithE: Developing alternative energy, alternative cars is pro-choice. The US government funding of such technology (as meager as it is (see below*), compared to the $41B/year given to the fossil fuel industry in subsidies and tax breaks for decades) is justified to provide a choice of energy sources that are not (1) dependent on foreign oil, (2) cheaper than the tar sands (3x as expensive as crude oil), (3) less environmentally stressing that fracking with 29 carcinogenic/toxic chemicals involved, and (4) helps in the battle against global warming. No one is making that choice for you, ET. It may come to that if GW gets as bad as most scientists say it will at some point in the future. But that is outside your and my lifetime ET. In other words, you too could buy a Prius. You too could install solar energy if you so choose. Shutting off these technologies (in order to keep the status quo) is anti-choice.

David: There is nothing whatsoever that man can do to "battle" global warming. Global warming/climate change is totally beyond man's ability to control. Global warming and climate changes are natural. Even if were possible for man to successfully eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (foreign & domestic) and simultaneously develop alternative energy sources, climate changes would continue to occur. Think about it. The Medieval Warming Period, which was much, much warmer than today's temperatures, occurred when there was not a hint of the use of fossil fuels. If there is one thing constant about climate it is that it’s not constant. It’s always changing. It has always changed. Over the last 4,500 years, there have been at least 75 major temperature swings. Over the last 400 years there have been no less than 27 climate changes, warm, cold, warm, cold. (Source...) Not a single one of the 27 climate swings was generated by humans. There has been no global warming at all over the 15 years (since 1998). The notion that developing the so-called green technologies will help in a battle against global warming is absurd.

*DoE 2012 budget for alternative energy:
Vehicle technology: $0.598B
Solar energy:$0.457B
Biomass: $0.341B
Nuclear: $0.754B
Energy transformation and acceleration (smart grids): $$0.550B

That is just shy of $2B/year. And to be fair there are also loan guarantees (that sometimes go sour) and there will be tax breaks given to these industries (if their lobbyists are worth a darn). But no place near what has been given to the fossil fuel industries for decades. BTW the DoE also funds "fossil energy research" at $0.453B in 2012.

EPA funding does not handle alternative energy. It does spend $1.105B/year in Clean Air and Global Climate Change.

261

[KeithE]

There is nothing whatsoever that man can do to "battle" global warming. Global warming/climate change is totally beyond man's ability to control. Global warming and climate changes are natural. Even if were possible for man to successfully eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (foreign & domestic) and simultaneously develop alternative energy sources, climate changes would continue to occur. Think about it. The Medieval Warming Period, which was much, much warmer than today's temperatures, occurred when there was not a hint of the use of fossil fuels. If there is one thing constant about climate it is that it’s not constant. It’s always changing. It has always changed. Over the last 4,500 years, there have been at least 75 major temperature swings. Over the last 400 years there have been no less than 27 climate changes, warm, cold, warm, cold. (Source...) Not a single one of the 27 climate swings was generated by humans. There has been no global warming at all over the 15 years (since 1998). The notion that developing the so-called green technologies will help in a battle against global warming is absurd.[/color][/list]

I note that you plot one of 30 studies done by the CO2science folks. When you look at the data for all 30 sites (or read their summaries since not all have plots), a differing story results. For example Faroe Islands using coral core data shows higher temperatures in the current period than the MWP. But nonetheless they do make the point that the MWP may be found in more locales than just Europe. But overall this group seems dedicated to disproving GW (they say so), so I do not trust their objectivity.

Here is a true reconstructed GLOBAL temperature history based on all reputable global studies

Note that there is good reason to say there was a MWP but note also the rapid rise since 1900 of the colored lines (the black line is an overlay of the direct temperature measurement (far more accurate and calibrated than the proxy data in colors). Note that this rise is acting against the tide of the Little Ice Age which should be lowering the temperature of earth due to the calculable Miklanovitch cycle. This rise in temp is found both in the direct temperature measurements and the proxy data.

Tree ring data is known to be inaccurate in the the current time frame (it takes 50 years or more for temperature can be deduced from a tree ring). For that reason some of the colored lines stop short of year 2000. But even these lines show a rapid increase in the face of the Little Ice Age.

It is hard to take you seriously David when you make claims that:

Over the last 4,500 years, there have been at least 75 major temperature swings

and you click on the cartoon of a picture that shows only 5 (maybe 6) temperature swings.

Their "75" swings may be 75 volcanoes not major temperature swings. There is no indication that the line drawn is actual data.

It is hard to take even this plot seriously when they say Mt. Pinatubo eruption caused a 1.1F drop from June 1991 to March 1992 when the data says is only fell slightly:
Hadley DATA: 0.269C in June 1991 and 0.199C in March 1992 = 0.07 C = 0.126F not 1.1F Source
GISS DATA: 0.49C in June 1991 and 0.39 in March 1992= 0.10C = 0.18F not 1.1F Source
I'd show Spencer's DATA but he does not make that conveniently available before 1998 (I wonder why? the MSU/AMSU data started in 1979).

Easterbrook is wrong as well which I'll show after Church sometime today. Quoting a known denialist who is merely asserting something w/o DATA does not make any case at all. It very well could be that Easterbrook counted noise fluctuations. I'll also show the relative contributions from volcanoes, solar activity and ghgs and the fact that when volcanoes/solar variations/ENSO effects are taken into account, the temperature due to all other factors (most of which are human caused) has continued to rise even in the 2000's.

[KeithE]

As for Don Easterbrook he is a retired Western Washington University prof who ahas been a long term denialist as shown by his appearance on Glenn Beck. Even his old Department at WWU has renounced his views. Now being a denialist does not automatically discredit a person as far as I'm concerned; but they do have to show some DATA to make their points which Easterbrook did not do in David's referenced article.

Already posted this study where the ENSO, solar variability and volcanoe influences are removed from the 1979-2010 DATA ( 3 land based measurements [NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC, HadCRU] datasets along with two satellite datasets[UAH and RSS]) that showed the presumably human caused portion has increased steadily throughout the 1979 - 2010 data with all datasets:
.
Note all datasets tell the same basic story.

But please read the article if you are at all interested.

[ET]

ET---

It is a "no brainer" to recognize 3 basic things:

1) We are polluting this planet with current fuel sources
2) There is an end point to fossel fuels running out
3) Industrialists ALWAYS seek the most profitable route over preserving natural resources / being environmentally friendly

I live right across the river from a gigantic phospate plant (largest in the US). Smoke boils out of their stacks so there is a constant cloud of steam (I assume) above them. Were it not for EPA inspections who knows what might be in it. They produce the most concentrated Phosphoric Acid in the industry to accomplish chrome plating invented by an English scientist.

Would you want to work there if there were no protective gear and numerous safety rules to protect the environment and people? Would you want to live here if it were revealed that toxins were being released going over the Pamlico Sound / Outer Banks / Atlantic ocean and seeping into the water as it settles to earth?

You etherial theories are just that---THEORIES.

Somehow you need to get some common sense and admit---we need to be careful of the planet. When industry moves to South America and Third World Countries, the motivation is both cheap labor and fewer environmental regulations = greater profits for those who own the companies and their stockholders.

I am bored to tears with the obtuse and technical "proofs" of your theory when my own nose tells me pollution is dangerous to my health and yours as well. I am glad I don't live in LA where smog produced by fossil fuels in autos and the trapping effect of those mountains and valleys makes eyes water and obscures the nearby mountain beauty!!!!

DUH!!!!!

Gene, mankind "pollutes the planet" with ANY fuel source it uses, and always has. That is the point of this discussion. Whether that is burning whale oil or kerosene or wood or coal. Solar and wind may pollute less, but there are still pollution issues with making the batteries, turbines and panels and with the mining for rare earth elements. The greenies have fits over mining for coal, but make no mention that their wind and solar options also require mining. The greenies will go to great lengths to put federal lands off-limits for oil, gas and coal exploration. Will they still prohibit such activities if those lands might contain rare earth elements needed to make solar panels, batteries or wind turbines? I imagine their objections will be found to be rather arbitrarily applied.

"Ethereal theories"? What garbage is that? Do you wish to claim that the EPA report (Investigating Rare Earth Element Mine Development in EPA Region 8 and Potential Environmental Impacts) regarding the pollution issues surrounding the mining of rare earth elements is "ethereal theory". Then you should complain to the EPA for publishing such a report. Is it "ethereal theory" that one article estimates that it will cost Britons $7000+ more a year in costs to meet government-dictated alternative energy goals or that those goals will require wind turbines covering land the size of New Jersey? I assure you if such mandates are made here in the U.S., you will find that the cost to your checking account is anything but "ethereal theory".

Where have I ever said we shouldn't be "careful of the planet"? Never said that nor to I believe we shouldn't. That is not the issue. The issue is acknowledging that there is no panacea of pollution free energy for mankind -- probably never will be. It is about dismissing alternative energy propaganda so rampant in the everyday world and taking into consideration the cost, viability and needs of the society and deciding that some actions are worth the risks because of the overall benefit to society.

Starting tomorrow, we could SAVE (approx.) 45,000+ people from DYING in 2012 if we did one thing: ban the automobile. Are you willing to support banning automobiles in order to save 45,000+ lives? If not, why not? Do you not care about all those people and their families? So if you proclaim to be a Christian and we are to love our neighbors, then why would you not immediately support the abolition of the automobile in order to save so many lives? Then add on how much tax money we could save on our infrastructure? No more pollution issues form automobile exhaust. No smog in LA. No more "dependence on foreign oil". No worries over the price of gas or diesel.

So if you really care about people, Gene, I expect you to respond in the affirmative that banning the automobile is the thing to do. On the contrary, if you do wish to sacrifice 45,000+ lives just so you can get around easier and more conveniently, then I might proclaim you wish to pollute the planet and don't care about people and are selfish, but that would be as stupid of me as, say, someone implying that someone else doesn't care about the planet because they dare to question the hype surrounding wind and solar energy and to suggest that those "solutions" are not all they are cracked up to be, wouldn't it?

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

Your number sounds interesting, but is hardly supported with any statistics.

None of us wants to ban automobiles, but all of us should vote to make them less polluting! It appears that is being done in the US---but not other places on this earth. The same is true of clear cutting SA rain forrests to keep from super-heating hurricanes as they pass by that continent and bust us worse in the future!

Every major move to make this planet last is commendable in my view. It will take R&D to accomplish it. That should be paid for by energy and polluting companies rather than average taxpayers. Sadly, most such companies value profits over kindness to the environment.

You are a smart person so do you have any recommendations to address such issues?

[ET]

More accurately, my belief is that collective action (with altruistic aims) can in many instances produce better results for all in a given nation (economy of scale often in play) than people/corporations (with self interests) acting on their own. You believe there are few such instances (defense being one). Neither philosophy is fail proof or universally better.

Of course there are no fail proof methods in anything in this world. That is not the issue. At its core it's not really even a matter of whether or not collective action can produce a better result than individual action. At the very core of the argument is whether or not you value the freedom of the individual members of a society to act upon their own value system and make their own choices or whether you wish to impose decisions on them because you and a collection of others deem it best. "Economies of scale" is no legitimate excuse to assume power in government. There is certainly no philosophical rationale in the founding of this country that says that power should be handed over to government based on "economies of scale", nor is it morally justified even if government comes up with a "better", or at least a functional, solution.

One big problem these days is that of lobbying by corporations/industrial groups or labor unions interfering with accountability, elections and the legislative process.

The best response I can come up with that problem is this:

"When you spread food out on a picnic table, you can expect ants. When you put $3 trillion on the table, you can expect special interests, lobbyists and pork-barrel politicians. As long as the federal government has so much money and power to hand out, we'll never get rid of the Abramoffs. Restrictions on lobbying deal with symptoms, not causes." -- David Boaz

You want to treat the symptom. I wish to cure the disease.

Developing alternative energy, alternative cars is pro-choice.....No one is making that choice for you, ET.

No one is making those choices for me? Really? I do not have the choice to buy gasoline without ethanol in it due to a government mandate. Over the next few years none of us will have the option to buy something as trivial as a low-cost, incandescent light bulb due to government dictate. We no longer have the choice of a 4x60W ceiling fan because it has decided there should be a 190W limit on ceiling fan light fixtures. The list could get quite lengthy.

It's not a question of alternatives or not, but which alternatives will be rewarded by government and which will be penalized, instead of letting the consumers make those selections based on their own choices without "altruistic government" attempting to distort the market. On a broader note, whenever taxes are raised to fund government programs, that means the ability of taxpayers to decide upon what they want to spend their money is reduced. The decision on how to spend their money is taken from them and handed over to government. Larger government is inherently anti-choice.

In other words, you too could buy a Prius. You too could install solar energy if you so choose. Shutting off these technologies (in order to keep the status quo) is anti-choice.

That's right, I could buy a Prius, a Volt, a Leaf or a new Suburban. I'm all for having choices in the products available for consumers, but what I am against is government rewarding and penalizing people based on the choice they make, trying to manipulate the market as to what choices are available or picking the winners and losers in the market. Why should those buying a Volt or a Leaf (and formerly a Prius)-- and making an average of $170,000, mind you -- get a tax rebate/deduction compared to someone who buys full-size truck, a Ford Focus or even a Suburban? Who determines - and upon what basis - that a Volt or a Leaf is worthy of what is essentially indirect corporate welfare or a subsidy for Big Business - something that the OWS crowd so opposes? Who is to say that such handouts are the best way to spend tax money, especially when the federal government has a long-term financial solvency issues that pale in comparison to France, Greece, Italy and Portugal?

Lest you think the conservative position is to support gas and oil subsidies: Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers For President Obama, 5/3/2011. I'm for all sorts of tax reform, which I have stated numerous times. However, please note the red text for an important fact that Keith and others throwing around oil subsidy numbers will fail to mention:

The largest tax break at issue is a tax credit passed in 2005, which is available to all U.S. manufacturers. Oil and gas companies qualify for that credit, so they will likely deduct somewhere in the neighborhood of $18.3 billion from their tax bill over the next 10 years. Note that this isn't really an "oil subsidy"; it's a manufacturing subsidy that oil and gas companies--along with many other companies--enjoy.

Rigging the tax code to make investments in manufacturing artificially more attractive than investments in something else is an enterprise designed to harm non-manufacturers for the benefit of ... manufacturers. Conservatives who want government to leave markets alone have no business throwing their political bodies in front of this tax break. If their political rhetoric means anything, they would see the president's bid and raise him by calling for total repeal of this tax break for everyone, not just for oil and gas companies.

[David Flick]

.
.Let's back off and try this one again, Keith. I made a single point responding to a single statement you made. Instead of responding to my point, you went off on a wild tangent, producing all manner of bogus graphs and alarmist propaganda. I'm going to copy (two different ways) your statement. I will place my response to your statement exactly as I originally wrote it.

A) The US government funding of such technology (as meager as it is (see below*), compared to the $41B/year given to the fossil fuel industry in subsidies and tax breaks for decades) is justified to provide a choice of energy sources that are not (1) dependent on foreign oil, (2) cheaper than the tar sands (3x as expensive as crude oil), (3) less environmentally stressing that fracking with 29 carcinogenic/toxic chemicals involved, and (4) helps in the battle against global warming.

B) The US government funding of such technology...is justified to provide a choice of energy sources that...helps in the battle against global warming.

David: Your point (above) is that the government is justified to provide funding of various energy sources to help in the battle against global warming.

There is nothing whatsoever that man can do to "battle" global warming. Global warming/climate change is totally beyond man's ability to control. Global warming and climate changes are natural. Even if were possible for man to successfully eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (foreign & domestic) and simultaneously develop alternative energy sources, climate changes would continue to occur. Think about it. The Medieval Warming Period, which was much, much warmer than today's temperatures, occurred when there was not a hint of the use of fossil fuels. If there is one thing constant about climate it is that it’s not constant. It’s always changing. It has always changed. Over the last 4,500 years, there have been at least 75 major temperature swings. Over the last 400 years there have been no less than 27 climate changes, warm, cold, warm, cold. (Source...) Not a single one of the 27 climate swings was generated by humans. There has been no global warming at all over the 15 years (since 1998). The notion that developing the so-called green technologies will help in a battle against global warming is absurd.

David: My point (above) is exactly as written. Please read what I wrote again. Very simply put, my point is that there is nothing whatsoever that man can do to fight global warming or climate change. Man is totally impotent in a battle against any sort of climate change. There is no energy source that will help in a so-called man-made climate change. You cannot produce any data whatsoever which proves that human influence can manipulate climate changes or global warming. None. Period. Such notion is an alarmist myth.

---------------------------------------------- Beyond the point I made above, I'll comment on your comments ----------------------------------------------

I note that you plot one of 30 studies done by the CO2science folks. 1When you look at the data for all 30 sites (or read their summaries since not all have plots), a differing story results. For example Faroe Islands using coral core data shows higher temperatures in the current period than the MWP. But nonetheless they do make the point that the MWP may be found in more locales than just Europe. 2But overall this group seems dedicated to disproving GW (they say so), so I do not trust their objectivity.

1) Contrary to the propaganda preached by the alarmists, the CO2Science folks are spot on with their data.
2) The CO2Science people don't attempt to disprove GW. Not at all. What they do disprove, however, is AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). There's a huge difference between GW and AGW. GW has occurred since the beginning of time. The alarmists falsely equate all climate change (global warming/global cooling) with AGW. As I have documented on numerous occasions, there have been scores of climate swings throughout history. There has never been a climate swing associated with human activity. Never. Period. To say that the most recent warming trend was human caused is a myth.

Here is a true reconstructed GLOBAL temperature history based on all reputable global studies

Keith, you are incredibly misinformed about the graph below. It is not a "true reconstruction" of global temperature history. Furthermore, it's not a "reputable" graph based on "reputable" global studies. Actually, it is Wikipedia's version of the 2nd "reconstruction" of Michael Mann's original "Hockey Stick" graph. While the graph is the one most often cited by alarmists, it iscompletely bogus.


Here's the short history of the graph: The oirginal "Hockey Stick" was a creation of Michael Mann, who at the time, was working with the IPCC in an attempt to show unprecedented rapid global warming. He created this graph (Wikipedia version)) from a study of tree ring proxies. It first appeared in the Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000) of the IPCC. The graph is located at the bottom of the illustration on this page of TAR-2000.

The graph was so badly off the mark from reality that it was immediately discredited. On the original graph, Mann had ommited known climate science history, i.e. completely eliminating both the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). The IPCC received so much flak from credible climate scientists that Mann's graph was eliminated from the next IPCC Assessment Report (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The IPCC did post a set of graphs in AR4 that is somewhat similar to Mann's original graph, but the fact of the matter is that his graph was eliminated completely from the IPCC AR4.

Since he didn't get it right the first time, Mann was forced to go back back to the drawing board with an attempt to create a graph that would include the MWP and the LIA. So he created a "Reconstructed" version of the graph. The very title ("Reconstructed") says it all. A reconstruction of an object, in this case a graph, is a remaking of the object. There would be no purpose of "reconstructing" a graph if it was right in the first place. Having failed with the original, Mann went back to the drawing board and "reconstructed" the graph and came up with this version, which still wasn't accurate or correct. While the reconstructed graph did include a MWP and LIA, it was still inaccurate because both the MWP and LIA were plotted wrong. It was wrong because the MWP was was plotted cooler than today's temperatures and the LIA wasn't plotted as as cold as as documented evidence. Check this comparison and see where Mann went wrong. The top graph is Mann's depiction whereas the lower graph is the commonly accepted historical depiction of the same period of time.

When Manns first "Reconstructed" graph was summarily discredited by credible climate scientists, he went back to the drawing board and created a second reconstruction, i.e. the one you show below. Not one of Mann's hockey stick graphs were plotted correctly. His original graph as well as both the first and second "Reconstructed" graphs are all bogus inasmuch as they incorrectly plotted. There you have it, the truth about Mann's graph reconstruction project.

Note that there is good reason to say there was a MWP but note also the rapid rise since 1900 of the colored lines (the black line is an overlay of the direct temperature measurement (far more accurate and calibrated than the proxy data in colors). Note that this rise is acting against the tide of the Little Ice Age which should be lowering the temperature of earth due to the calculable Miklanovitch cycle. This rise in temp is found both in the direct temperature measurements and the proxy data.

Tree ring data is known to be inaccurate in the the current time frame (it takes 50 years or more for temperature can be deduced from a tree ring). For that reason some of the colored lines stop short of year 2000. But even these lines show a rapid increase in the face of the Little Ice Age.

It is hard to take you seriously David when you make claims that:

Over the last 4,500 years, there have been at least 75 major temperature swings

I didn't make the claim that there were 75 major temperature swings. That was done by Climatologists, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, creators of the graph. Your argument is with them, not me.

and you click on the cartoon of a picture that shows only 5 (maybe 6) temperature swings.
Their "75" swings may be 75 volcanoes not major temperature swings. There is no indication that the line drawn is actual data.

And there is no indication on a single one of Mann's bogus graphs that his lines are actual data... In fact, Mann has never released records of his data to the public. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have been trying for more than a decade to get Mann to release the data to his hockey stick. Thus far, he has flatly refused to do so.

It is hard to take even this plot seriously when they say Mt. Pinatubo eruption caused a 1.1F drop from June 1991 to March 1992 when the data says is only fell slightly:
Hadley DATA: 0.269C in June 1991 and 0.199C in March 1992 = 0.07 C = 0.126F not 1.1F Source
GISS DATA: 0.49C in June 1991 and 0.39 in March 1992= 0.10C = 0.18F not 1.1F Source

Neither the Hadley Data (Phil Jones' outfit) nor the GISS Data (James Hansen's outfit) are credible sources. Data from both Hadley and GISS have been proven to be manipulated.

I'd show Spencer's DATA but he does not make that conveniently available before 1998 (I wonder why? the MSU/AMSU data started in 1979).

Easterbrook is wrong as well which I'll show after Church sometime today. Quoting a known denialist who is merely asserting something w/o DATA does not make any case at all. It very well could be that Easterbrook counted noise fluctuations. I'll also show the relative contributions from volcanoes, solar activity and ghgs and the fact that when volcanoes/solar variations/ENSO effects are taken into account, the temperature due to all other factors (most of which are human caused) has continued to rise even in the 2000's.

Call him a "denialist" or whatever, Easterbrook is correct. You can deny his acuracy and be a "denialist" yourself, but I'm sticking with the credible scientists with 50 years of experience in the business...

[KeithE]

.
.Let's back off and try this one again, Keith. I made a single point responding to a single statement you made. Instead of responding to my point, you went off on a wild tangent, producing all manner of bogus graphs and alarmist propaganda. I'm going to copy (two different ways) your statement. I will place my response to your statement exactly as I originally wrote it.

A) The US government funding of such technology (as meager as it is (see below*), compared to the $41B/year given to the fossil fuel industry in subsidies and tax breaks for decades) is justified to provide a choice of energy sources that are not (1) dependent on foreign oil, (2) cheaper than the tar sands (3x as expensive as crude oil), (3) less environmentally stressing that fracking with 29 carcinogenic/toxic chemicals involved, and (4) helps in the battle against global warming.

B) The US government funding of such technology...is justified to provide a choice of energy sources that...helps in the battle against global warming.

David: Your point (above) is that the government is justified to provide funding of various energy sources to help in the battle against global warming.

There is nothing whatsoever that man can do to "battle" global warming. Global warming/climate change is totally beyond man's ability to control. Global warming and climate changes are natural. Even if were possible for man to successfully eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (foreign & domestic) and simultaneously develop alternative energy sources, climate changes would continue to occur. Think about it. The Medieval Warming Period, which was much, much warmer than today's temperatures, occurred when there was not a hint of the use of fossil fuels. If there is one thing constant about climate it is that it’s not constant. It’s always changing. It has always changed. Over the last 4,500 years, there have been at least 75 major temperature swings. Over the last 400 years there have been no less than 27 climate changes, warm, cold, warm, cold. (Source...) Not a single one of the 27 climate swings was generated by humans. There has been no global warming at all over the 15 years (since 1998). The notion that developing the so-called green technologies will help in a battle against global warming is absurd.

David: My point (above) is exactly as written. Please read what I wrote again. Very simply put, my point is that there is nothing whatsoever that man can do to fight global warming or climate change. Man is totally impotent in a battle against any sort of climate change. There is no energy source that will help in a so-called man-made climate change. You cannot produce any data whatsoever which proves that human influence can manipulate climate changes or global warming. None. Period. Such notion is an alarmist myth.

---------------------------------------------- Beyond the point I made above, I'll comment on your comments ----------------------------------------------

I note that you plot one of 30 studies done by the CO2science folks. 1When you look at the data for all 30 sites (or read their summaries since not all have plots), a differing story results. For example Faroe Islands using coral core data shows higher temperatures in the current period than the MWP. But nonetheless they do make the point that the MWP may be found in more locales than just Europe. 2But overall this group seems dedicated to disproving GW (they say so), so I do not trust their objectivity.

1) Contrary to the propaganda preached by the alarmists, the CO2Science folks are spot on with their data.
2) The CO2Science people don't attempt to disprove GW. Not at all. What they do disprove, however, is AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). There's a huge difference between GW and AGW. GW has occurred since the beginning of time. The alarmists falsely equate all climate change (global warming/global cooling) with AGW. As I have documented on numerous occasions, there have been scores of climate swings throughout history. There has never been a climate swing associated with human activity. Never. Period. To say that the most recent warming trend was human caused is a myth.

Here is a true reconstructed GLOBAL temperature history based on all reputable global studies

Keith, you are incredibly misinformed about the graph below. It is not a "true reconstruction" of global temperature history. Furthermore, it's not a "reputable" graph based on "reputable" global studies. Actually, it is Wikipedia's version of the 2nd "reconstruction" of Michael Mann's original "Hockey Stick" graph. While the graph is the one most often cited by alarmists, it iscompletely bogus.


Here's the short history of the graph: The oirginal "Hockey Stick" was a creation of Michael Mann, who at the time, was working with the IPCC in an attempt to show unprecedented rapid global warming. He created this graph (Wikipedia version)) from a study of tree ring proxies. It first appeared in the Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000) of the IPCC. The graph is located at the bottom of the illustration on this page of TAR-2000.

The graph was so badly off the mark from reality that it was immediately discredited. On the original graph, Mann had ommited known climate science history, i.e. completely eliminating both the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). The IPCC received so much flak from credible climate scientists that Mann's graph was eliminated from the next IPCC Assessment Report (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The IPCC did post a set of graphs in AR4 that is somewhat similar to Mann's original graph, but the fact of the matter is that his graph was eliminated completely from the IPCC AR4.

Since he didn't get it right the first time, Mann was forced to go back back to the drawing board with an attempt to create a graph that would include the MWP and the LIA. So he created a "Reconstructed" version of the graph. The very title ("Reconstructed") says it all. A reconstruction of an object, in this case a graph, is a remaking of the object. There would be no purpose of "reconstructing" a graph if it was right in the first place. Having failed with the original, Mann went back to the drawing board and "reconstructed" the graph and came up with this version, which still wasn't accurate or correct. While the reconstructed graph did include a MWP and LIA, it was still inaccurate because both the MWP and LIA were plotted wrong. It was wrong because the MWP was was plotted cooler than today's temperatures and the LIA wasn't plotted as as cold as as documented evidence. Check this comparison and see where Mann went wrong. The top graph is Mann's depiction whereas the lower graph is the commonly accepted historical depiction of the same period of time.

When Manns first "Reconstructed" graph was summarily discredited by credible climate scientists, he went back to the drawing board and created a second reconstruction, i.e. the one you show below. Not one of Mann's hockey stick graphs were plotted correctly. His original graph as well as both the first and second "Reconstructed" graphs are all bogus inasmuch as they incorrectly plotted. There you have it, the truth about Mann's graph reconstruction project.

Note that there is good reason to say there was a MWP but note also the rapid rise since 1900 of the colored lines (the black line is an overlay of the direct temperature measurement (far more accurate and calibrated than the proxy data in colors). Note that this rise is acting against the tide of the Little Ice Age which should be lowering the temperature of earth due to the calculable Miklanovitch cycle. This rise in temp is found both in the direct temperature measurements and the proxy data.

Tree ring data is known to be inaccurate in the the current time frame (it takes 50 years or more for temperature can be deduced from a tree ring). For that reason some of the colored lines stop short of year 2000. But even these lines show a rapid increase in the face of the Little Ice Age.

It is hard to take you seriously David when you make claims that:

Over the last 4,500 years, there have been at least 75 major temperature swings

I didn't make the claim that there were 75 major temperature swings. That was done by Climatologists, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, creators of the graph. Your argument is with them, not me.

and you click on the cartoon of a picture that shows only 5 (maybe 6) temperature swings.
Their "75" swings may be 75 volcanoes not major temperature swings. There is no indication that the line drawn is actual data.

And there is no indication on a single one of Mann's bogus graphs that his lines are actual data... In fact, Mann has never released records of his data to the public. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have been trying for more than a decade to get Mann to release the data to his hockey stick. Thus far, he has flatly refused to do so.

It is hard to take even this plot seriously when they say Mt. Pinatubo eruption caused a 1.1F drop from June 1991 to March 1992 when the data says is only fell slightly:
Hadley DATA: 0.269C in June 1991 and 0.199C in March 1992 = 0.07 C = 0.126F not 1.1F Source
GISS DATA: 0.49C in June 1991 and 0.39 in March 1992= 0.10C = 0.18F not 1.1F Source

Neither the Hadley Data (Phil Jones' outfit) nor the GISS Data (James Hansen's outfit) are credible sources. Data from both Hadley and GISS have been proven to be manipulated.

I'd show Spencer's DATA but he does not make that conveniently available before 1998 (I wonder why? the MSU/AMSU data started in 1979).

Easterbrook is wrong as well which I'll show after Church sometime today. Quoting a known denialist who is merely asserting something w/o DATA does not make any case at all. It very well could be that Easterbrook counted noise fluctuations. I'll also show the relative contributions from volcanoes, solar activity and ghgs and the fact that when volcanoes/solar variations/ENSO effects are taken into account, the temperature due to all other factors (most of which are human caused) has continued to rise even in the 2000's.

Call him a "denialist" or whatever, Easterbrook is correct. You can deny his acuracy and be a "denialist" yourself, but I'm sticking with the credible scientists with 50 years of experience in the business...

David you made several points (not a single point) each of which I responded to.

1. First you gave you typical unsupported bluster

There is nothing whatsoever that man can do to "battle" global warming. Global warming/climate change is totally beyond man's ability to control. Global warming and climate changes are natural.

which 97% of climatologists disagree with.

2. You then brought up the MWP and I responded to that agreeing that there was indeed a MWP and even gave a plot to support that on a global basis. But I also noted on that plot the rapidity of the 1900+ temp rise which is far more rapid than the slow rolling MWP and it correlates with CO2 buildup (on a lagged basis as expected from greenhouse theory - remember the book I sent you?).

3.Then you introduced the so-called 75 temperature swings in the last 4500 years. The source you gave only showed 5 or 6 swings. I called your bluff and showed your source for all to see (you did accurately quote the sources takeaway but his evidence only showed 75 volcanoes not temperature swings. You say my beef is with Cliff Harris and Randy Mann. I guess that means you do not stand behind your linked articles (when challenged) and probably hope BL readers do not check your "sources". My beef is with uncritical acceptance of anything that supports your viewpoints in all probability brought to our attention by someone with an agenda.

4. You then claimed 27 "climate changes" in the last 400 years. Again I called your bluff and questioned your source which did indeed make that claim but gave no evidence of 27 changes or even define what was menat by "climate changes". I noted it was from a retired geologist known to be a gw denialist and I pointing out I needed his DATA to convince me.

I may get to the rest of your reply post after a small group tonight if my wife is busy doing something else. Then again I have better things to do.

-------------------
Wife is not home yet.

As for the hockey stick as I have explained to you umpteen times, the handle may not be as straight as before the data analysis was corrected, but the the blade (the 20 century) is just as pronounced and that was Mann etal's point. Got it?

Even a Koch Brothers funded effort (The BEST Study) with a Denialist leader (Richard Muller) had to admit that the Had/CRU data is correct (not manipulated as you say) as to basic shape/conclusion. Got it? GISS and UAH's satellite data also confirms it. Got it?