AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

[Muhammed]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

See, you have no evidence whatsoever. All you have is logical fallacies.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....your deranged twaddle got thoroughly debunked....now you just are spazzing out over your own ignorance.

Actually it is you who has "no evidence whatsoever" to support your demented denial of reality, MuMu. All you've got is your utter insanity.

It is your doomsday cult that made the claim, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence, not those who are skeptical.

And you've been shown all kinds of evidence and you moronically deny the reality of all of it. You are a braindead troll.

I just showed you scientific evidence of the CO2 greenhouse effect.....are you ever going to address THAT?

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

And so far, the GWC has not provided any evidence.

That's your very insane denier cult delusion...disproven right on this thread.....and in hundreds of other places....you will never see the obvious evidence if you keep your head tucked so far up your ass, MuMu.

For a change, try not maintaining the standard denier cult position on human caused global warming...

Actually you have provided no evidence. You simply make fallacious appeals to authority like the rest of your doomsday cult.

Why do you GWC fools always rely on logical fallacies?

 

[Crick]

Actually, Muhammed, you have blatantly lied in every single post of this thread. You (and the rest of the world) have been presented with overwhelming amounts of evidence. Have a look throught WG-I's Physical Science Basis.

 

[jc456]

Actually, Muhammed, you have blatantly lied in every single post of this thread. You (and the rest of the world) have been presented with overwhelming amounts of evidence. Have a look throught WG-I's Physical Science Basis.

Can you say bullshit? There's been zippo of evidence and you know that. So, present the evidence and then you can make this statement. But not till then.

 

[eagle1462010]

Actually, Muhammed, you have blatantly lied in every single post of this thread. You (and the rest of the world) have been presented with overwhelming amounts of evidence. Have a look throught WG-I's Physical Science Basis.

Yeah........I live fairly near the coast.............built an ark..........and a lot of life jackets................

Supposed to be under water..............

 

[Crick]

AR5 does not say your location is supposed to be underwater.

 

[eagle1462010]

AR5 does not say your location is supposed to be underwater.

And the other sites that are dry.............hmmm...........I've got an ark waiting.......all that time and effort..........It's still dry.........Want to buy one cheap..............

 

[Crick]

Perhaps if you paid attention to what mainstream science actually said you might not have wasted your money.

 

[RollingThunder]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Where's the evidence? Where is it you fucking brainwashed dooomsday cult member. C'mon chicken little show us some proof.

Is the science settled?

I might as well 'kill two retards with one stone', so to speak.

Although, I should add one little note to ol' MuMu......if you want to challenge the scientific consensus on the physics of greenhouse gases and the connection of the human caused 43% more CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not the one you need to talk to....go get some degrees in climate science, do some research, write up your (pre-determined) conclusions, submit your paper to some top scientific journals and try to get them past peer-review and published, and argue with real scientists.....OTHERWISE....you're just blowing hot air about something that you know less than nothing about.

Because scientific understanding and knowledge is always being refined and expanded, and science is always open to considering new data, even findings or research results which perhaps challenge old theories, and committed to arriving at a better understanding of things in order to explain and incorporate any new information into the scientific 'picture' or basic understanding of the Universe....so....it could legitimately be said that science is never 'absolutely' settled.....HOWEVER...in many areas of science, scientists have gained a profound understanding how things work...basic and advanced physics...and their certainty in their understanding of some processes and events approaches a kind of certainty.....which is why scientists often express their findings in terms of how certain they are.

]In the case of human caused global warming, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are currently very well understood by the climate scientists who have been studying and researching this field very intensely for many decades now, and they say they have 95% confidence in their conclusions.

Since you two obviously know nothing about science, you very likely have no real idea what that means....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, moron, scientists have an enormous amount of evidence supporting their conclusions. Your insane denier cult assumption that all those scientists have no evidence supporting the heating effects of increasing CO2 is incredibly stupid. Your ignorance is your problem. I'm not your teacher and I don't have to assemble the evidence and show it to a deranged denier cult retard who couldn't understand it anyway, and would just deny its reality even if I showed it to you. Your denial of the existence of Greenhouse Gases, such as carbon dioxide, is evidence of a pathological distrust of science and very probably, the kind of crackpot conspiracy theory ideation common to your cult.

If you want the 'evidence', little retard, why don't you just google 'evidence that increased CO2 causes global warming', and read what comes up?

Or, you could read this, if you dare (fair warning - could cause your head to explode)....

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
For the first time, researchers directly observed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere
Salon, com
LINDSAY ABRAMS
FEB 26, 2015
People who continue to deny that human activity is directly impacting climate change (looking at you, Inhofe) had better pay attention to this one: scientists, for the first time, have provided direct observational evidence that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Or...

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

See, you have no evidence whatsoever. All you have is logical fallacies.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....your deranged twaddle got thoroughly debunked....now you just are spazzing out over your own ignorance.

Actually it is you who has "no evidence whatsoever" to support your demented denial of reality, MuMu. All you've got is your utter insanity.

It is your doomsday cult that made the claim, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence, not those who are skeptical.

And you've been shown all kinds of evidence and you moronically deny the reality of all of it. You are a braindead troll.

I just showed you scientific evidence of the CO2 greenhouse effect.....are you ever going to address THAT?

Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Feb. 25, 2015

And so far, the GWC has not provided any evidence.

That's your very insane denier cult delusion...disproven right on this thread.....and in hundreds of other places....you will never see the obvious evidence if you keep your head tucked so far up your ass, MuMu.

For a change, try not maintaining the standard denier cult position on human caused global warming...

Actually you have provided no evidence. You simply make fallacious appeals to authority like the rest of your doomsday cult.

Why do you GWC fools always rely on logical fallacies?

ROTFLMFAO.....

And right there is the ignorance and insanity of the anti-science rightwingnut retards, plainly revealed....

The troll MuMu stupidly and very ignorantly imagines that offering supporting evidence in a debate by presenting the testimony of relevant expert scientists somehow equates to a "logical fallacy" and a "fallacious appeals to authority"....LOLOLOL....the poor ignorant imbecile has no idea what those terms actually mean.

Here's the actual meaning....

Argument from Misleading Authority
The Fallacy Files

"It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition."
-- Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 527.

Also Known As:
* Appeal to Authority
* Argument from Authority
* Argument from Misleading Authority

Exposition:
We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. There are, however, four major ways in which such arguments can go wrong:

1. An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways:

* It is unnecessary. If a question can be answered by observation or calculation, an argument from authority is not needed. Since arguments from authority are weaker than more direct evidence, go look or figure it out for yourself.

The renaissance rebellion against the authority of Aristotle and the Bible played an important role in the scientific revolution. Aristotle was so respected in the Middle Ages that his word was taken on empirical issues which were easily decidable by observation. The scientific revolution moved away from this over-reliance on authority towards the use of observation and experiment.

Similarly, the Bible has been invoked as an authority on empirical or mathematical questions. A particularly amusing example is the claim that the value of pi can be determined to be 3 based on certain passages in the Old Testament. The value of pi, however, is a mathematical question which can be answered by calculation, and appeal to authority is irrelevant.

* It is impossible. About some issues there simply is no expert opinion, and an appeal to authority is bound to commit the next type of mistake. For example, many self-help books are written every year by self-proclaimed "experts" on matters for which there is no expertise.​

​

2. The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.

3. The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.

For example, suppose that a medical scientist testifies that ambient cigarette smoke does not pose a hazard to the health of non-smokers exposed to it. Suppose, further, that it turns out that the scientist is an employee of a cigarette company. Clearly, the scientist has a powerful bias in favor of the position that he is taking which calls into question his objectivity.

There is an old saying: "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient," and a similar version for attorneys: "A lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client." Why should these be true if the doctor or lawyer is an expert on medicine or the law? The answer is that we are all biased in our own causes. A physician who tries to diagnose his own illness is more likely to make a mistake out of wishful thinking, or out of fear, than another physician would be.

4. While the authority is an expert, his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinion on the subject. The fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an expert who supports virtually any position that one wishes to take. "Such is human perversity", to quote Lewis Carroll. This is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find expert opinion on their side of a question, whatever that side is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion.

Experts are human beings, after all, and human beings err, even in their area of expertise. This is one reason why it is a good idea to get a second opinion about major medical matters, and even a third if the first two disagree. While most people understand the sense behind seeking a second opinion when their life or health is at stake, they are frequently willing to accept a single, unrepresentative opinion on other matters, especially when that opinion agrees with their own bias.

Bias (problem 3) is one source of unrepresentativeness. For instance, the opinions of cigarette company scientists tend to be unrepresentative of expert opinion on the health consequences of smoking because they are biased to minimize such consequences. For the general problem of judging the opinion of a population based upon a sample, see the Fallacy of Unrepresentative Sample.​

To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:

* Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
* Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
* Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
* Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
* Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.​

If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority.

Since not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious, some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as "appeal to inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority", rather than the traditional name "appeal to authority". For the same reason, I use the name "appeal to misleading authority" to distinguish fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority.

Sources:
* Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (Tenth Edition) (Prentice Hall, 1998), pp. 165-166.
* T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 31-34.

Resources:
* James Bachman, "Appeal to Authority", in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 274-286.
* Robert Todd Carroll, "Appeal to Authority", The Skeptic's Dictionary.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We most definitely need to beware of this regime. They don't care how many laws they break to further their totalitarian communist agenda.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

toiletpaper://AG']www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/']AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

Hey the fossil fuel industry loves the so called renewable energy industry because every wind and solar farm has at its heart a fossil fuel burning plant

Everyone of you people who want to see wind and solar everywhere as far as the eye can see are casting your vote for more fossil fuel burning plants

 

[SSDD]

Actually, Muhammed, you have blatantly lied in every single post of this thread. You (and the rest of the world) have been presented with overwhelming amounts of evidence. Have a look throught WG-I's Physical Science Basis.

Sorry crick...we have been through that already....you could 't even provide a piece of evidence proving the most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis....after much embarrassment you finally provided that tired old graph showing that CO2 absorbs and emits IR which no one is contesting anyway....You can't even provide any actual observed, measured evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere...much less evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.

 

[SSDD]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by human activity has caused or will ever cause deleterious global warming in the foreseeable future.
That's the fact of the matter.

There is the science-denying, reality-denying utter insanity of the hard-core denier cult fanatic....laid bare for all to see.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious to watch retards like ol' MuhMuhMuh squirm and twist as reality bitch-slaps them again and again......

Poor old thunder....crick has proven himself completely unable to provide any observed measured evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere...maybe you would like to try....

While we all know that you won't be able to provide any since none exists, it will be interesting to see what passes for proof in that head full of twisted up strings you call a brain.

 

[Muhammed]

 

[Muhammed]

Hide the Decline – Just Facts


Why do the fraudsters need to hide the decline?

 

[Crick]

Do you have any idea how shopworn is this argument? I would have thought your bosses at Exxon Mobil would have instructed you to stop making it and embarrassing them so.

Since the "decline" was widely discussed in Mann and Jones' field, as was the "trick", for this to work you have to once again assume an enormously wide-spread conspiracy.

Give it a rest.

 

[sealybobo]

We most definitely need to beware of this regime. They don't care how many laws they break to further their totalitarian communist agenda.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

toiletpaper://AG']www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/']AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

First, you shoot the messenger, then you support government prosecution of people who don't buy into the global warming bullshit...lol

Can you imagine what you sound like?

Why do right wingers believe lead is bad for us? Why do we deny evolution but believe lead is harmful?

I'll bet you you've never seen the evidence for lead poisoning but you swallow what science tells us and even if you did see the evidence you wouldn't understand it.

 

[RollingThunder]

We most definitely need to beware of this regime. They don't care how many laws they break to further their totalitarian communist agenda.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

toiletpaper://AG']www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/']AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

Hey the fossil fuel industry loves the so called renewable energy industry because every wind and solar farm has at its heart a fossil fuel burning plant

Everyone of you people who want to see wind and solar everywhere as far as the eye can see are casting your vote for more fossil fuel burning plants

Does your insanity know no limits, EmptySkull?

Your claim is utterly ridiculous and false. You are a liar.

The fossil fuel industry, which feeds you your denier cult talking points, HATES renewable energy sources because they are going to put the fossil fuel industry out of business.

Large solar plants and wind farms do not need "a fossil fuel burning plant at its heart", you flaming moron. Nor do homes with a rooftop solar system and a Tesla Powerwall energy storage battery.

Improved power grids cross-connecting wind and solar plants (wind is strongest at night and solar in the daytime) and rapidly improving energy storage systems are already starting to eliminate the need for gas fired peaker plants.

Example...
A next-gen battery to land in Hawaii, courtesy of Aquion Energy
Jan 9, 2015
A big next-generation battery will soon be hooked up to a solar system in Hawaii, providing a glimpse into the future of what is possible when it comes to storing energy from the sun.

Why The Renewables Revolution Is Now Unstoppable
FEB 1, 2016

The Battery Revolution: A Technology Disruption, Economics and Grid Level Application Discussion with Eos Energy Storage
Forbes
JAN 13, 2015

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Journal of Power Sources
1 March 2013, Vol.225:60–74, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054
Open Access, Creative Commons license

• Cory Budischak
• DeAnna Sewell
• Heather Thomson
• Leon Mach
• Dana E. Veron
• Willett Kempton

Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW). The purpose is twofold: 1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And 2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs. Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost. At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.

Can renewables provide baseload power?

 

[jc456]

We most definitely need to beware of this regime. They don't care how many laws they break to further their totalitarian communist agenda.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

toiletpaper://AG']www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/']AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

First, you shoot the messenger, then you support government prosecution of people who don't buy into the global warming bullshit...lol

Can you imagine what you sound like?

Why do right wingers believe lead is bad for us? Why do we deny evolution but believe lead is harmful?

I'll bet you you've never seen the evidence for lead poisoning but you swallow what science tells us and even if you did see the evidence you wouldn't understand it.

do you know that fluoride is bad for you? DOH!! Well smart ass?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We most definitely need to beware of this regime. They don't care how many laws they break to further their totalitarian communist agenda.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

toiletpaper://AG']www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/']AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

Hey the fossil fuel industry loves the so called renewable energy industry because every wind and solar farm has at its heart a fossil fuel burning plant

Everyone of you people who want to see wind and solar everywhere as far as the eye can see are casting your vote for more fossil fuel burning plants

Does your insanity know no limits, EmptySkull?

Your claim is utterly ridiculous and false. You are a liar.

The fossil fuel industry, which feeds you your denier cult talking points, HATES renewable energy sources because they are going to put the fossil fuel industry out of business.

Large solar plants and wind farms do not need "a fossil fuel burning plant at its heart", you flaming moron. Nor do homes with a rooftop solar system and a Tesla Powerwall energy storage battery.

Improved power grids cross-connecting wind and solar plants (wind is strongest at night and solar in the daytime) and rapidly improving energy storage systems are already starting to eliminate the need for gas fired peaker plants.

Example...
A next-gen battery to land in Hawaii, courtesy of Aquion Energy
Jan 9, 2015
A big next-generation battery will soon be hooked up to a solar system in Hawaii, providing a glimpse into the future of what is possible when it comes to storing energy from the sun.

Why The Renewables Revolution Is Now Unstoppable
FEB 1, 2016

The Battery Revolution: A Technology Disruption, Economics and Grid Level Application Discussion with Eos Energy Storage
Forbes
JAN 13, 2015

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Journal of Power Sources
1 March 2013, Vol.225:60–74, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054
Open Access, Creative Commons license

• Cory Budischak
• DeAnna Sewell
• Heather Thomson
• Leon Mach
• Dana E. Veron
• Willett Kempton

Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW). The purpose is twofold: 1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And 2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs. Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost. At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.

Can renewables provide baseload power?

vanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossil fuel consumption[edit]
The plant requires burning natural gas each morning to get the plant started. TheWall Street Journal reported: "Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much."[32] On August 27, 2014, the State of California approved Ivanpah to increase its annual natural gas consumption from 328 million cubic feet of natural gas, as previously approved, to 525 million cubic feet.[33] In 2014, the plant burned 867,740 million BTU of natural gas emitting 46,084 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions.[34] If that gas had been used in a conventional fossil fuel plant, it would have generated nearly 124,000 MWh of electrical energy. That is enough to power the annual needs of 20,660 Southern California homes.[35]Ivanpah used that gas plus solar energy to produce 524,000 MWh of electrical energy (more than four times that of the referenced conventional plant), all while operating at well below its expected output. 2015 is showing even higher production numbers, with Q1 increases of 170% over the same time period in 2014.[36]

Ivanpah Solar uses two Rentech Type-D water tube boilers. The California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission approved for each a stack "130 feet high and 60 inches in diameter" and consumption of 242,500 ft3/h of fuel.[37]


And FYI I have never once denied the earth is warming slightly nor have I ever denied that people are a major cause of that warming.

If you can find anywhere I have said otherwise post it right here. I won't hold my breath though.

Wind and solar are never going to be enough to replace fossil fuels EVER. Wind only produces one average less than 30% of its rated capacity and solar works less than half the time

Sorry but our only option for abundant, reliable, emission free power is nuclear


Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

 

[RollingThunder]

We most definitely need to beware of this regime. They don't care how many laws they break to further their totalitarian communist agenda.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

toiletpaper://AG']www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/']AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

Hey the fossil fuel industry loves the so called renewable energy industry because every wind and solar farm has at its heart a fossil fuel burning plant

Everyone of you people who want to see wind and solar everywhere as far as the eye can see are casting your vote for more fossil fuel burning plants

Does your insanity know no limits, EmptySkull?

Your claim is utterly ridiculous and false. You are a liar.

The fossil fuel industry, which feeds you your denier cult talking points, HATES renewable energy sources because they are going to put the fossil fuel industry out of business.

Large solar plants and wind farms do not need "a fossil fuel burning plant at its heart", you flaming moron. Nor do homes with a rooftop solar system and a Tesla Powerwall energy storage battery.

Improved power grids cross-connecting wind and solar plants (wind is strongest at night and solar in the daytime) and rapidly improving energy storage systems are already starting to eliminate the need for gas fired peaker plants.

Example...
A next-gen battery to land in Hawaii, courtesy of Aquion Energy
Jan 9, 2015
A big next-generation battery will soon be hooked up to a solar system in Hawaii, providing a glimpse into the future of what is possible when it comes to storing energy from the sun.

Why The Renewables Revolution Is Now Unstoppable
FEB 1, 2016

The Battery Revolution: A Technology Disruption, Economics and Grid Level Application Discussion with Eos Energy Storage
Forbes
JAN 13, 2015

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Journal of Power Sources
1 March 2013, Vol.225:60–74, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054
Open Access, Creative Commons license

• Cory Budischak
• DeAnna Sewell
• Heather Thomson
• Leon Mach
• Dana E. Veron
• Willett Kempton

Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW). The purpose is twofold: 1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And 2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs. Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost. At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.

Can renewables provide baseload power?

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossil fuel consumption[edit]
The plant requires burning natural gas each morning to get the plant started. TheWall Street Journal reported: "Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much."[32] On August 27, 2014, the State of California approved Ivanpah to increase its annual natural gas consumption from 328 million cubic feet of natural gas, as previously approved, to 525 million cubic feet.[33] In 2014, the plant burned 867,740 million BTU of natural gas emitting 46,084 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions.[34] If that gas had been used in a conventional fossil fuel plant, it would have generated nearly 124,000 MWh of electrical energy. That is enough to power the annual needs of 20,660 Southern California homes.[35]Ivanpah used that gas plus solar energy to produce 524,000 MWh of electrical energy (more than four times that of the referenced conventional plant), all while operating at well below its expected output. 2015 is showing even higher production numbers, with Q1 increases of 170% over the same time period in 2014.[36]

I said: Large solar plants and wind farms do not need "a fossil fuel burning plant at its heart"

Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
NREL - National Renewable Energy Labratory - U.S. Department of Energy
This page provides information on Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a concentrating solar power (CSP) project...
Technology: Power tower
Status: Operational
Country: United States
City: Tonopah
State: Nevada
Land Area: 1,600 acres
Solar Resource: 2,685 kWh/m2/yr
Source of Solar Resource: NREL Solar Power Prospector
Electricity Generation: 500,000 MWh/yr (Expected)
Fossil Backup Type: None

World’s biggest solar tower + storage plant to begin generation this month
RenewEconomy
By Giles Parkinson
14 May 2015
The world’s first large scale solar tower and storage facility is scheduled to start electricity production within the next two weeks, with full commercial production due to begin a month later.

US company Solar Reserve is currently putting the finishing touches to the 110MW Crescent Dunes solar tower and storage plant in Tonopah, Nevada. With 10 hours of storage, it will deliver a block of power each day to service Las Vegas between noon and until 12am or 2am.

“We’re producing steam now, and we will start commissioning the steam turbine soon,” Tom Georgis, the head of development told RenewEconomy at the Australian Solar Council conference in Melbourne. “We will be delivering electricity this month, and full commercial delivery by early July.”

Solar towers and storage – delivered in Solar Reserve’s case by molten salt situated at the top of a giant tower and receiver and heated by thousands of heliostats, is considered to the next big thing in solar technology, because of its ability to provide “dispatch able” energy, a key in modern flexible grids.

“It’s a renewable energy facility that will be delivering into the night,” Georgis says. “It is a unique facility and will demonstrate the value of storage.”

It is the first of three such projects that is expected to kick-start a move to large scale solar projects that – because of storage – can act as baseload power plants, peaking power plants (responding to changes in demand or supply), or whatever use the customer needs.

The other two plants to be built are in South Africa and Chile.

Solar tower and storage has been largely sidelined in the excitement about individual and grid scale battery storage opportunities, particularly with the cost reductions and marketing appeal of the newly announced Tesla products.

Georgis noted that Crescent Dunes will have 110MW capacity and 10 hours of storage. That is the equivalent of 1,100MWh of storage. “There is no battery solution that can be installed within 10 times the price of what we offer with this technology,” he said.

Wind and solar are never going to be enough to replace fossil fuels EVER...

You poor delusional stooge.....your myths are insane, contra-factual bits of centralized energy industry (fossil fuels and nuclear) propaganda bullshit.

Wind and solar ARE replacing fossil fuels....all around the world. Within a decade or two, fossil fuels will be almost completely phased out and replaced by renewable energy sources.

Nuclear power plants (fission power specifically - if they ever develop workable fusion energy systems, that would be another story) would be a very, very bad option....in many, many ways.....the human race does not need nuclear at all.....all the energy we need is freely available for the taking from renewable sources....which we are only just beginning to tap.

Sorry but our only option for abundant, reliable, emission free power is nuclear Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

More propaganda bullshit! From a nuclear industry sponsored advocacy group propaganda outlet that you are too stupid to see is biased.

In the real world...

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power
Physicians for Social Responsibity

The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite these claims by industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous and expensive form of energy that poses serious risks to human health, national security and U.S. taxpayers.

Nuclear Power is Dirty

Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste(1) and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate. Even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Department of Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.

Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies.

Serious Safety Concerns

Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by a number of disasters and near disasters. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.(5)

In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind of the radioactive fallout.(6) The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.(3)

Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors.(3)

Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism

The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan.

In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle.

In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8)

Nuclear Power Doesn’t Mean Energy Independence

Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S. only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium found in other nations. The U.S.’s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future.

One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important non-proliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.

Making the Safe, Sustainable Investment

It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming.

Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.(3,11)

When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous. As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We most definitely need to beware of this regime. They don't care how many laws they break to further their totalitarian communist agenda.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

toiletpaper://AG']www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/']AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Totally hilarious how you and the rightwingnut propaganda rag you cite here, 'The Blazing Retards', both equates the "fossil fuel industry" to "climate change deniers"....which is true, in a way, since the fossil fuel industry created and finances and controls the AGW denial movement and writes most of their fraudulent propaganda.....

....and also deceitfully tries to conflate the greedy fossil fuel industry executives -- who the AG was specifically referring to as being being under consideration for possible legal action, who knowingly misled the public and their shareholders, starting several decades ago, about the very real dangers of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate changes caused by their products, and who are now the targets of various state and federal investigations....and who are will probably eventually be tried for 'Crimes Against Humanity'....(as they should be!) -- with the ordinary run-of-the-mill, very ignorant, somewhat retarded, anti-science rightwingnut dupes, like you, WildBullKrap, who have been conned and bamboozled into denying the obvious, scientifically confirmed reality of AGW/CC that most sane people can clearly see, and dementedly upholding corporate profits over the welfare of the human race.....BUT who are not at all the target of the possible legal actions that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was referring to in her testimony to Congress....as she very plainly said. YOUR PUPPETMASTERS ARE TRYING TO FRIGHTEN YOU DENIER CULT CLOWNS by twisting the meaning of the information they're citing - they're doing it right in front of your eyes - and you are too dense to see it. LOL. That's hilarious!

Hey the fossil fuel industry loves the so called renewable energy industry because every wind and solar farm has at its heart a fossil fuel burning plant

Everyone of you people who want to see wind and solar everywhere as far as the eye can see are casting your vote for more fossil fuel burning plants

Does your insanity know no limits, EmptySkull?

Your claim is utterly ridiculous and false. You are a liar.

The fossil fuel industry, which feeds you your denier cult talking points, HATES renewable energy sources because they are going to put the fossil fuel industry out of business.

Large solar plants and wind farms do not need "a fossil fuel burning plant at its heart", you flaming moron. Nor do homes with a rooftop solar system and a Tesla Powerwall energy storage battery.

Improved power grids cross-connecting wind and solar plants (wind is strongest at night and solar in the daytime) and rapidly improving energy storage systems are already starting to eliminate the need for gas fired peaker plants.

Example...
A next-gen battery to land in Hawaii, courtesy of Aquion Energy
Jan 9, 2015
A big next-generation battery will soon be hooked up to a solar system in Hawaii, providing a glimpse into the future of what is possible when it comes to storing energy from the sun.

Why The Renewables Revolution Is Now Unstoppable
FEB 1, 2016

The Battery Revolution: A Technology Disruption, Economics and Grid Level Application Discussion with Eos Energy Storage
Forbes
JAN 13, 2015

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Journal of Power Sources
1 March 2013, Vol.225:60–74, doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054
Open Access, Creative Commons license

• Cory Budischak
• DeAnna Sewell
• Heather Thomson
• Leon Mach
• Dana E. Veron
• Willett Kempton

Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW). The purpose is twofold: 1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And 2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs. Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost. At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.

Can renewables provide baseload power?

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossil fuel consumption[edit]
The plant requires burning natural gas each morning to get the plant started. TheWall Street Journal reported: "Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much."[32] On August 27, 2014, the State of California approved Ivanpah to increase its annual natural gas consumption from 328 million cubic feet of natural gas, as previously approved, to 525 million cubic feet.[33] In 2014, the plant burned 867,740 million BTU of natural gas emitting 46,084 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions.[34] If that gas had been used in a conventional fossil fuel plant, it would have generated nearly 124,000 MWh of electrical energy. That is enough to power the annual needs of 20,660 Southern California homes.[35]Ivanpah used that gas plus solar energy to produce 524,000 MWh of electrical energy (more than four times that of the referenced conventional plant), all while operating at well below its expected output. 2015 is showing even higher production numbers, with Q1 increases of 170% over the same time period in 2014.[36]

I said: Large solar plants and wind farms do not need "a fossil fuel burning plant at its heart"

Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
NREL - National Renewable Energy Labratory - U.S. Department of Energy
This page provides information on Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a concentrating solar power (CSP) project...
Technology: Power tower
Status: Operational
Country: United States
City: Tonopah
State: Nevada
Land Area: 1,600 acres
Solar Resource: 2,685 kWh/m2/yr
Source of Solar Resource: NREL Solar Power Prospector
Electricity Generation: 500,000 MWh/yr (Expected)
Fossil Backup Type: None

World’s biggest solar tower + storage plant to begin generation this month
RenewEconomy
By Giles Parkinson
14 May 2015
The world’s first large scale solar tower and storage facility is scheduled to start electricity production within the next two weeks, with full commercial production due to begin a month later.

US company Solar Reserve is currently putting the finishing touches to the 110MW Crescent Dunes solar tower and storage plant in Tonopah, Nevada. With 10 hours of storage, it will deliver a block of power each day to service Las Vegas between noon and until 12am or 2am.

“We’re producing steam now, and we will start commissioning the steam turbine soon,” Tom Georgis, the head of development told RenewEconomy at the Australian Solar Council conference in Melbourne. “We will be delivering electricity this month, and full commercial delivery by early July.”

Solar towers and storage – delivered in Solar Reserve’s case by molten salt situated at the top of a giant tower and receiver and heated by thousands of heliostats, is considered to the next big thing in solar technology, because of its ability to provide “dispatch able” energy, a key in modern flexible grids.

“It’s a renewable energy facility that will be delivering into the night,” Georgis says. “It is a unique facility and will demonstrate the value of storage.”

It is the first of three such projects that is expected to kick-start a move to large scale solar projects that – because of storage – can act as baseload power plants, peaking power plants (responding to changes in demand or supply), or whatever use the customer needs.

The other two plants to be built are in South Africa and Chile.

Solar tower and storage has been largely sidelined in the excitement about individual and grid scale battery storage opportunities, particularly with the cost reductions and marketing appeal of the newly announced Tesla products.

Georgis noted that Crescent Dunes will have 110MW capacity and 10 hours of storage. That is the equivalent of 1,100MWh of storage. “There is no battery solution that can be installed within 10 times the price of what we offer with this technology,” he said.

Wind and solar are never going to be enough to replace fossil fuels EVER...

You poor delusional stooge.....your myths are insane, contra-factual bits of centralized energy industry (fossil fuels and nuclear) propaganda bullshit.

Wind and solar ARE replacing fossil fuels....all around the world. Within a decade or two, fossil fuels will be almost completely phased out and replaced by renewable energy sources.

Nuclear power plants (fission power specifically - if they ever develop workable fusion energy systems, that would be another story) would be a very, very bad option....in many, many ways.....the human race does not need nuclear at all.....all the energy we need is freely available for the taking from renewable sources....which we are only just beginning to tap.

Sorry but our only option for abundant, reliable, emission free power is nuclear Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

More propaganda bullshit! From a nuclear industry sponsored advocacy group propaganda outlet that you are too stupid to see is biased.

In the real world...

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power
Physicians for Social Responsibity

The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite these claims by industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous and expensive form of energy that poses serious risks to human health, national security and U.S. taxpayers.

Nuclear Power is Dirty

Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste(1) and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate. Even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Department of Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.

Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies.

Serious Safety Concerns

Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by a number of disasters and near disasters. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.(5)

In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind of the radioactive fallout.(6) The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.(3)

Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors.(3)

Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism

The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan.

In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle.

In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8)

Nuclear Power Doesn’t Mean Energy Independence

Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S. only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium found in other nations. The U.S.’s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future.

One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important non-proliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.

Making the Safe, Sustainable Investment

It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming.

Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.(3,11)

When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous. As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation.

Sorry but a power source that only works half the time and another that's output is overrated by 70% will not ever meet our current needs and most certainly will not meet our future needs.

And all you pie in the sky wind and solar nuts love to call people anti science and ignorant yet you are certainly ignoring the science of nuclear power and the next generation designs that forward thinking people are already investing in

Proliferation is a non issue as the new generation reactors produce no waste that can be weaponized and in fact they will use our existing stockpiles of waste as fuel.

They cannot melt down by design, they can be manufactured on an assembly line and placed into service regionally where the power is needed. They are secure as they can be buried underground since they do not need copious amounts of water for cooling and they run at atmosphere not under pressure.

You are letting your irrational China Syndrome mindset make you an emotional fearful idiot

FYI aside from Chernobyl which was a faulty design and only used in Russia no one has died from any nuclear power mishap

In fact today people are living in the so called hot zone of Chernobyl and have no health risks higher than any other population. The background radiation in the exclusion zone is less than in most major cities

So go ahead and ignore the facts and the science of nuclear but we will have to embrace it sooner rather than later