Global warming skeptics growing in numbers - Page 18

dstark · 07-01-2009, 03:42 PM

fundingfather, what are you talking about?

Costs are zero? And therefore, I'm naive?

Nobody told me the costs are zero.

" However, your simplistic views of attacking global warming such that the costs to society are zero is alarmingly naive. So, if you are getting this from "scientists", I think you should disregard their credibility."

Where did I say this, fundingfather?

I never said this fundingfather.

dstark · 07-01-2009, 03:49 PM

collegeinusa, just curious.

Mr Payne · 07-01-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

This is actually an "illogical" objection. While some energy sources lend themselves more readily to certain uses than others, energy sources are ultimately fungible. Pickens' windmill plan proposed using windmills to generate electricity, freeing natural gas (which is currently the fastest growing electric power fuel source) to be used for vehicles in compressed form.

Yes, I'm sure that's what the Obama adminstration is shooting for. Converting our transportation infrastructure from one petroleum based source to another. Pickens is a virtual non-entity in guiding our national energy policy and the plan was ludicrious to begin with. There will have to be a very large imbalance between the BTu/$ ratio of gasoline & LNG/CNG before we convert our entire transport infrastructure over...

Quote:

And the reason that windmills are imported is because the market for them is greater elsewhere, not because they cannot be manufactured competitively here. (Many windmills are imported from Scandinavia, not exactly a "low wage" foreign competitor.)

Incorrect. The US market for new windmills is the biggest in the world.

Quote:

I find it interesting that many people are fixated on the massive-powerplant-owned-by-large-corporation model for power generation, as if that's the only answer. It's the only answer which continues to concentrate power (literally and figuratively) in the hands of a few large businesses, which may explain why it gets all the PR push, but in fact non-polluting power sources such as on-site PV electric panels (which require significant local labor for installation, and whose manufacturing is not labor-intensive) could be a significant piece of the answer to the problem, and don't require massive infrastructure upgrades to work immediately. And free market forces can actually drive the market, as there is no way to monopolize the market for either manufacturing or installation in contrast to centralized power sources.

On-site PV is one of the most hilariously uneconomic solutions I've heard. Personally, I think wind is going to be a solution to our electrical needs, along with nuclear. Solar is *quite* far away from being an economic reality.

zotan · 07-01-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Incorrect. The US market for new windmills is the biggest in the world.

Naw, you're wrong.

The US only recently has become the largest market. Before that, the largest market was Europe. That's why many of the windmill companies, like Vestas, are based there as they were established during a time when most demand for windmills was coming from Europe.

fundingfather · 07-01-2009, 04:01 PM

dstark, here is another view of your position as stated by you:

Quote:

The downside of doing nothing about global warming, or not believing in global warming and doing nothing, is much larger than trying to do something about global warming.

Global warming doesn't exist....
Doing nothing or doing something to stop global warming isn't bad.

Global warming exists...
Human beings slow it down or stop it... great.
Human beings try to slow down global warming and it fails.. bad but at least we tried.
Human beings do nothing when they could have stopped it....tragic.

Looks like a no brainer to me.

You totally ignore the economic costs of trying to stop global warming. Of course you also ignore the geopolitical reality of any attempts by us to stop global warming are likely to be much more than offset by increases in global warming as generated in Asia. Of course it would be our kids' jobs that would be sacrificed in this windmill tilting exercise (pardon the pun).

catahoula · 07-01-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Did you ever look this up on your own, or are you just waiting for me to do the work for you?

You made the claim, my friend, you provide the source and quote.

And no, it wasn't about Hansen explaining away his bogus predictions later, it was that the "volcanic eruption" moderation was specified as being part of the A-B-C predictions when he made them.

If you can't back it up, no problem.

Mr Payne · 07-01-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Naw, you're wrong.

The US only recently has become the largest market. Before that, the largest market was Europe. That's why many of the windmill companies, like Vestas, are based there as they were established during a time when most demand for windmills was coming from Europe.

How can you say that I'm wrong and then in the next sentence agree with me?

You might be saying what Kluge meant to say - but he did not say that.

zotan · 07-01-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

And no, it wasn't about Hansen explaining away his bogus predictions later, it was that the "volcanic eruption" moderation was specified as being part of the A-B-C predictions when he made them.

Right, and all three of those links discussed the inclusion of volcano eruptions. The testimony isn't available online so I can't show you the primary source but there are hundreds of secondary source that discuss it.

zotan · 07-01-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

You totally ignore the economic costs of trying to stop global warming. Of course you also ignore the geopolitical reality of any attempts by us to stop global warming are likely to be much more than offset by increases in global warming as generated in Asia. Of course it would be our kids' jobs that would be sacrificed in this windmill tilting exercise (pardon the pun).

All studies, except the one funded by the oil and gas industry, show that the costs are relatively minor. On the other hand, nearly all studies show the cost of inaction to be far greater. I'll take the cost of action.

dstark · 07-01-2009, 04:16 PM

Yes fundingfather, I did not ignore the costs. I understand there might be economic costs. There are economic costs to doing nothing too. Did you ever consider the costs of doing nothing might be more than doing something?

I don't know what the economic costs are in fighting global warming and you don't either.

And I understand other countries might not be helpful.

Where did I say the costs are zero?

fundingfather · 07-01-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

All studies, except the one funded by the oil and gas industry, show that the costs are relatively minor.

Does that mean that Obama is not privy to these studies? Even he said that the costs for electricity would sky rocket under his plan.

zotan · 07-01-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Does that mean that Obama is not privy to these studies? Even he said that the costs for electricity would sky rocket under his plan.

Really? When did he say that?

fundingfather · 07-01-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Yes fundingfather, I did ignore the costs. And I understand there might be economic costs. There are economic costs to doing nothing too. Did you ever consider the costs of doing nothing might be more than doing something?

I don't know what the economic costs are in fighting global warming and you don't either.

And I understand other countries might not be helpful.

With all these things that you either don't profess to understand or that you have not included in your analysis, is it no small wonder why someone would conclude that your conclusion being a "no brainer" is a bit naive and simplistic?

As far as your saying that the costs would be zero, I would have thought that someone with your economic background would automatically include the costs in your analysis if they played a part in any conclusion that was labeled a "no brainer". Since you didn't include them, and since they definitely play a part in any global warming position, I assumed you figured they were zero. My mistake.

dstark · 07-01-2009, 04:33 PM

fundingfather, what are the costs? You tell me.

Go ahead. You tell me. The costs for acting and the costs for doing nothing.

And where did Obama say electricity costs would soar? That's a lie.

So I never said the costs were zero, did I?

catahoula · 07-01-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

All studies, except the one funded by the oil and gas industry, show that the costs are relatively minor.

You consider trillions in cap and trade taxes minor?
(love the "funded by the oil and gas industry", btw)

Quote:

On the other hand, nearly all studies show the cost of inaction to be far greater. I'll take the cost of action.

This statements meaningless unless Catastrophic AGW is occurring, zotan. Would you mind pointing it out to me?