Global sea ice

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. How much do we have to lower CO2 to get the ice back to normal?

A. $15 trillion

 

[RollingThunder]

Q. How much do we have to lower CO2 to get the ice back to normal?

A. $15 trillion

Too bad you are so retarded, CrazyFruitcake.

"The ice" was "normal" for the Holocene when CO2 levels were about 280ppm, which was the case for nearly the last ten thousand years until human began burning vast amounts of fossil fuels and massive deforestation, which has now raised CO2 levels to almost 410ppm in only about a century. During the last period of heavy glaciation (popularly, the 'ice age') CO2 levels were about 180ppm. An increase of only 100ppm was sufficient to take the planet from the depths of the ice age, with miles thick glaciers covering large parts of North America, to the much higher temperatures and much higher sea levels of the current interglacial period. Now humans have increased CO2 levels by about 130ppm, which will push (it has only begun, BTW, even the current levels of CO2 (which are still increasing rapidly), will cause a lot more temperature increase in the future) the Earth's temperatures and climate into levels not seen in many millions of years when the Earth was a very different place with enormously higher sea levels.

 

[Muhammed]

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Or, are you afraid that I will rip it to shreds shove up your brainwashed ass?

Or what?


Put up or shut up, jackass.

OK, you silly little shit, here you go.

That is not an argument.

Put up or shut up.

In other words you are too fucking stupid to read a simple graph.

That is an ad hominem attack, not an argument.

Still waiting for you to explain your reasoning.....

 

[jc456]

Let's say, for argument's sake, we accept your data as undoctored and accurate. We can also accept your dire prognostications as inevitable.

How much is too much to spend? Whom would you get to foot the bill?

When the United States was fighting for our nation's survival in World War II against Hitler and the Nazis, and the Imperial Japanese Military, and the outcome was by no means a sure thing, how much would you have said is "too much to spend" to win the war?

Now that the human race is fighting for its survival and the survival of an inhabitable planet for our presumptive descendants, in this climate change crisis the entire planet is facing, which is pretty much the most severe threat to our survival our species has ever faced, you want to quibble about "how much is too much to spend" on our own survival?

Do you understand just how idiotic your question is?

The outcome of the 2nd World War was never an existential threat to the US and climate change isn't an existential threat to the human race.

Wrong on both counts, bozo.

If the Nazis and Imperial Japan had won WWII, there would be no 'United States' today......and the outcome of the war could easily have gone the other way if wrong decisions had been made by the Allied leadership at certain crucial points in the war.

The United States was very fortunate to have had excellent leadership who were willing to spend whatever it took to win the war. For example, In the middle of a World War that had the USA financially strained to the max, President Roosevelt started the Manhattan Project, which was entirely experimental, trying desperately to develop a new and radically different weapons technology, with absolutely no assurance of that they would be successful. Eventually, the Manhattan Project employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion US Dollars (equivalent to $23 billion in 2007 dollars).

The current climate change crisis is much more of a threat to America and the American people (and to the whole world) than a fascist triumph in WWII would have been. Now though, we have traitors to the human race trying to confuse people about the severity of the threat the world is facing so that they can continue to make more profit selling the stuff that is destroying our world.

Hyperbolic predictions concerning the threat is the reason many people have taking climate change seriously.

The scientific predictions of the consequences to the Earth's biosphere and ecology if the human race continues to add 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (and the oceans) every year are not hyperbole, you poor bamboozled fool. The real reasons many people are not taking climate change seriously have to do with the fossil fuel industry's massively funded propaganda campaign that plays on rightwingnut anti-government, anti-science political and economic ideologies to deceive people about this threat.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm hearing your answer the question of how much is too much to spend is that no amount is too much regardless of the actual threat.

OK....you are wrong!

You have been deceived into believing that anthropogenic climate change is no real threat, in spite of the overwhelming consensus by the world scientific community that it is an enormous threat to the peace and stability of our civilizations, to the Earth's biosphere, to our agricultural systems and food supplies, and to our very survival.

"The actual threat" to our only world and to the human race is so enormous that there is indeed NO amount of money that is "too much to spend" to try to deal with it.

Too bad you no longer live in the real world because you are so brainwashed by the fraudulent propaganda and lies pushed by the fossil fuel industry.

too funny, Japan and Germany both lost and yet are still around? how is that possible? you stated had the US lost we would no longer exist. only in lib land do rocks such as yourself speak.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

RollingThunder

Please brush up on the RULES for this forum, specifically this one:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Cryosphere, alpine glaciers, sea ice, continental ice caps, are all melting. The result is more weather extremes, a rising sea level, and damage to infrastructure in the Arctic areas. You did not address any of these facts. There is no reason not to hold you in contempt.

yeah.

I'm not seeing the down side or any imminent threats to mankind. The shores may recede in some areas but more lands open up that were previously frozen out. . .

Same as it has gone for millions of years.

Even if it's coming at a faster rate. . . our ability to adapt to the changing environment is even faster still.

So, what's the problem?

 

[RollingThunder]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

RollingThunder

Please brush up on the RULES for this forum, specifically this one:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

What the hell? Each one of the graphs or articles I just cited IS, IN FACT, LINKED TO IT'S SOURCE. The link is in the usual place - in the headline of the article..,,or at the end of the quote, on small quotes with no headline. Each one IS, IN FACT, AN EXCERPT containing only a portion, or "MEDIUM SECTION" of the original article, each one only a few paragraphs long, as you can see for yourself by simply following the embedded link.

I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

RollingThunder

Please brush up on the RULES for this forum, specifically this one:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

What the hell? Each one of the graphs or articles I just cited IS, IN FACT, LINKED TO IT'S SOURCE. The link is in the usual place - in the headline of the article..,,or at the end of the quote, on small quotes with no headline. Each one IS, IN FACT, AN EXCERPT containing only a portion, or "MEDIUM SECTION" of the original article, each one only a few paragraphs long, as you can see for yourself by simply following the embedded link.

I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear.

What is so hard for you to understand the words "SMALL TO MEDIUM SECTION"? That is what my post to you, as a mod, is about. Do NOT post entire articles or several paragraphs. ONLY post a few sentences then have the link to the material.

 

[mamooth]

So, what's the problem?

So we can mark you down as a willing permanent host for a dozen displaced Benghalis?

There's the problem. Earth is full. Displaced people have to go somewhere, but nobody wants to give up their own land. Canada and Russia aren't going to say "Sure, world, move on in!".

What's more, the newly opened land can't be farmed. It's exposed bedrock or arctic muck. Farming requires soil, and there isn't any.

 

[RollingThunder]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

RollingThunder

Please brush up on the RULES for this forum, specifically this one:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

What the hell? Each one of the graphs or articles I just cited IS, IN FACT, LINKED TO IT'S SOURCE. The link is in the usual place - in the headline of the article..,,or at the end of the quote, on small quotes with no headline. Each one IS, IN FACT, AN EXCERPT containing only a portion, or "MEDIUM SECTION" of the original article, each one only a few paragraphs long, as you can see for yourself by simply following the embedded link.

I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear.

What is so hard for you to understand the words "SMALL TO MEDIUM SECTION"?

That is what I am trying to figure out about you, actually!

That is what my post to you, as a mod, is about. Do NOT post entire articles or several paragraphs. ONLY post a few sentences then have the link to the material.

Perhaps posting an entire article violates some very silly rule of this forum, but the rule specifically states: "Only paste a small to medium section of the material", and a few paragraphs IS IN FACT, by any reasonable definition, a medium section of the "material" I was citing. Claiming that a 'medium' section is "ONLY a few sentences" is an absurd perversion of the rules which I suspect you are trying to do in just my case in order to suppress factual evidence from being used in these debates. If a "medium section" is "only a few sentences", then what the hell would you call a "small section"?.....a few isolated letters?

And BTW, I did link to the material I cited, as I pointed out to you before, and as anyone can see for themselves. Why are you still demanding this of me like I violated the rules?

Your perversion of the rules here just makes me all the more believe, as I said before:
"I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear."

 

[Chuz Life]

So, what's the problem?

So we can mark you down as a willing permanent host for a dozen displaced Benghalis?

There's the problem. Earth is full. Displaced people have to go somewhere, but nobody wants to give up their own land. Canada and Russia aren't going to say "Sure, world, move on in!".

What's more, the newly opened land can't be farmed. It's exposed bedrock or arctic muck. Farming requires soil, and there isn't any.

Why can't we just encourage all those in those places being lost to simply abort all their kids? The problem would be solved within a decade. Right? Isn't it great how many problems can be solved by denying personhood and killing children?

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

RollingThunder

Please brush up on the RULES for this forum, specifically this one:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

What the hell? Each one of the graphs or articles I just cited IS, IN FACT, LINKED TO IT'S SOURCE. The link is in the usual place - in the headline of the article..,,or at the end of the quote, on small quotes with no headline. Each one IS, IN FACT, AN EXCERPT containing only a portion, or "MEDIUM SECTION" of the original article, each one only a few paragraphs long, as you can see for yourself by simply following the embedded link.

I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear.

What is so hard for you to understand the words "SMALL TO MEDIUM SECTION"?

That is what I am trying to figure out about you, actually!

That is what my post to you, as a mod, is about. Do NOT post entire articles or several paragraphs. ONLY post a few sentences then have the link to the material.

Perhaps posting an entire article violates some very silly rule of this forum, but the rule specifically states: "Only paste a small to medium section of the material", and a few paragraphs IS IN FACT, by any reasonable definition, a medium section of the "material" I was citing. Claiming that a 'medium' section is "ONLY a few sentences" is an absurd perversion of the rules which I suspect you are trying to do in just my case in order to suppress factual evidence from being used in these debates. If a "medium section" is "only a few sentences", then what the hell would you call a "small section"?.....a few isolated letters?

And BTW, I did link to the material I cited, as I pointed out to you before, and as anyone can see for themselves. Why are you still demanding this of me like I violated the rules?

Your perversion of the rules here just makes me all the more believe, as I said before:
"I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear."

When you copy/paste as much content as you have above, it's going too far. There's something called plagiarism and copyright violations. When you have more content in a post that is copied from elsewhere rather than using your own thoughts/opinions, then there's a problem. This forum has rules, and those rules WILL be enforced. If you don't like it, I suggest you either learn to live with them or find somewhere else. End of discussion, which means the end of YOU disrupting this thread by arguing about the rules.

 

[mamooth]

Why can't we just encourage all those in those places being lost to simply abort all their kids?

Why can't you not be dishonest troll?

If you don't have an intelligent response, you always have the option to say nothing.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why can't we just encourage all those in those places being lost to simply abort all their kids?

Why can't you not be dishonest troll?

If you don't have an intelligent response, you always have the option to say nothing.

Who is trolling?

I am being dead serious to make a an equally serious point.

If leftardz don't care about the lives and rights of children in the womb... and they (many of them) think abortion is a good thing because the world is over populated.... Why wouldn't they see abortion as an equally good thing (useful tool) to drop the population when "the sky is falling" on climate change?

 

[polarbear]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

RollingThunder

Please brush up on the RULES for this forum, specifically this one:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

What the hell? Each one of the graphs or articles I just cited IS, IN FACT, LINKED TO IT'S SOURCE. The link is in the usual place - in the headline of the article..,,or at the end of the quote, on small quotes with no headline. Each one IS, IN FACT, AN EXCERPT containing only a portion, or "MEDIUM SECTION" of the original article, each one only a few paragraphs long, as you can see for yourself by simply following the embedded link.

I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear.

What is so hard for you to understand the words "SMALL TO MEDIUM SECTION"? That is what my post to you, as a mod, is about. Do NOT post entire articles or several paragraphs. ONLY post a few sentences then have the link to the material.

I was wondering how much longer he can get away with this.
Every post he makes is a screen full of entire web pages in oversized font and the only content he adds to it is a squall of vulgarities. Even though he is on my ignore list the latter part, his own vulgar content still shows up in the quotes by other posters

 

[RollingThunder]

we are going to see continued warming for at least this century, more likely several centuries. By the end of this century, sea ports will be having major problems because of the sea level rise,

We have experienced pretty consistent warming and sea level rise for literally all of human history.

Total bullshit!

If you are not only that ignorant but soooo misinformed that you are beyond simply ignorant, way off into crackpot-land, then you must be just another rightwingnut denier cult troll. No wonder your posts have been so idiotic.

In the real world....

Figure 4.31: Holocene Sea‐Level curve showing the most recent period of rise and warming. Data is the same as in Figure 4.30, but at a higher resolution. Some of these data suggest that sea‐levels approached modern around 6,000 years ago, but may have actually exceeded modern sea‐levels in some regions (i.e., Malacca), but, on average, sea levels have been relatively slow to rise and have been fairly stable for at least the last few thousand years.

(source: Case Study: 11,000 Years of Sea Level Change)

If, as you claim, renewable energy sources are cheaper than current infrastructure, why are they receiving substantial federal subsidies and not being deployed on a large scale.

More of your idiotic ignorance, fnuccer. Renewables ARE, IN FACT, "being deployed on a large scale."

There are some very excellent reasons for the government to subsidize the development of CLEAN renewable unending energy sources like solar and wind energy as alternatives to polluting, environmentally destructive, climate destabilizing, un-healthy fossil fuels.

The real question at this point is why are governments still massively subsidizing DIRTY, POLLUTING, inefficient, limited-finite-amount fossil fuels that are already enormously profitable - (example: fossil fuel companies operating in just the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012.)

How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high.

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

OCI’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment. See the More Info: Worst of the Worst section below for more detail.

You can find more information on the breakdown of global subsidies and international finance at our interactive website: ShiftTheSubsidies.org.

How much money does the United States government provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries?

As of July 2014, OCI estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity.


Right now, we’re subsidizing deadly behavior. But we can do better.

Through 2013, fossil fuel subsidies linked to production actually increased under President Barack Obama’s administration, largely as a result of an “All of the Above” energy strategy promoting oil and gas industry expansion. At a federal level, production and exploration subsidies – some of the most inefficient and least defensible subsidies – rose from $12.5 billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion in 2013.

Companies and their investors want to make money. Why would they eschew the benefits of renewables that you so confidently proclaim? If it makes good business sense, why would businesses need to be forced to change?

More idiotic denier cult nonsense.

"Companies", businesses, and entire industries are actually embracing "the benefits of renewables" in large numbers worldwide, and they are not being "forced to change", they are switching energy sources because renewables have become cheaper than fossil fuels (or nukes).

Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
The Independent
By Andrew Griffin
4 January 2017
(excerpts)
Solar energy is now cheaper than traditional fossil fuels.

Solar and wind is now either the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum. The influential foundaton has described the change as a "tipping point" that could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point – it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming,” said Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.

The cheap price of solar and wind energy is already encouraging companies to build more plants to harvest it. The US is adding about 125 solar panels every minute, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association and investment in renewables in 2015 rose to $286 billion, up 5 per cent from the year before.

RollingThunder

Please brush up on the RULES for this forum, specifically this one:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

What the hell? Each one of the graphs or articles I just cited IS, IN FACT, LINKED TO IT'S SOURCE. The link is in the usual place - in the headline of the article..,,or at the end of the quote, on small quotes with no headline. Each one IS, IN FACT, AN EXCERPT containing only a portion, or "MEDIUM SECTION" of the original article, each one only a few paragraphs long, as you can see for yourself by simply following the embedded link.

I have to suspect, given how inappropriate your rebuke is to the material I posted that supposedly provoked it, that you are one of the people who deny human caused global warming and you are just trying to suppress any kind of intelligible presentation of the scientific evidence that demolishes the anti-science myths deniers hold so dear.

What is so hard for you to understand the words "SMALL TO MEDIUM SECTION"? That is what my post to you, as a mod, is about. Do NOT post entire articles or several paragraphs. ONLY post a few sentences then have the link to the material.

I was wondering how much longer he can get away with this.
Every post he makes is a screen full of entire web pages in oversized font and the only content he adds to it is a squall of vulgarities. Even though he is on my ignore list the latter part, his own vulgar content still shows up in the quotes by other posters

And the trolls are still working hard to suppress any presentation of the scientific evidence that destroys their denier cult dogmas and myths.

 

[SSDD]

And the trolls are still working hard to suppress any presentation of the scientific evidence that destroys their denier cult dogmas and myths.

This is a place to discuss issues...great steaming piles of whatever it is that you call evidence is hardly discussion...if you find that you are unable to extract the meaningful bits...or anything meaningful out of those great steaming piles, then either you lack the knowledge to do so...or the material you choose has nothing meaningful to say...or both...I vote for both and that you lack the knowledge to recognize what is meaningful and what isn't..which explains why you never seem to post anything more than great steaming piles of nothing but opinion.

 

[polarbear]

That`s simply not their style. Besides... the material they post is published for the exact purpose the way they use it.(like skepticalscifi.org)
Forum fornication with rapid cut&paste/posting to pile as much bs/day over everything that they don`t like.

 

[RollingThunder]

And the trolls are still working hard to suppress any presentation of the scientific evidence that destroys their denier cult dogmas and myths.

This is a place to discuss issues...

This a debate forum, and in any debate it is essential to provide evidence to support your statements or else you are just blowing hot air without any significance, you poor clueless retard.

The actual scientific evidence on AGW is utter anathema to you deranged denier cult fanatics. Plus you are all too stupid and uneducated to understand it anyway.....even as the Dunning-Kruger Effect fools you into imagining that you know more and are much smarter than all of the world's scientists. You run from the evidence, you try to suppress it, and you idiotically deny you have ever even seen it, but no matter how try to avoid recognizing the reality of abrupt rapid human caused global warming, it will bitch-slap you hard in the not very distant future.

 

[fncceo]

utter anathema

Anathema is definitive enough, no need for the superlative adjective.