More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[flacaltenn]

Let me point out that your backups run little. Significantly less fuel is consumed. That is the point.

That might be true some of time.. But in reality no grid system operator is gonna request the Nat Gas plant shutdown immediately to take a flaky 20 minute wind spike. They're going to idle, waste fuel and dump the electricity to ground. Can't even get on phone and try to sell it.. So the average wind is (at best) 35% of rated Maximum and if you filter out all the 30 minute and less power spikes -- the average is down to below 25%. Point is -- no engineering will EVER approve EXPANDING grid generation capacity or their safe operating margins on the back of wind and solar.

There's actually a reason for all those state mandated "20% renewables by 2020" edicts. It comes from the fact that mid-summer nighttime loads at 10PM are about 80% of the daytime peak demand. Thus you could (most days) put 20% of solar in and not have to expand your primary fossil/nuclear/hydro generation.. Solar is a PEAKER technology. And once you push past 20% of wind/solar -- you are treading on dangerous ground and NEED massive investments in grid scale storage and filtering.

 

[skookerasbil]

it doesn't reduce reliability of energy. Coal and natural gas provide most of the energy--how does adding energy (more watts available) make energy less reliable? Using your logic, energy has become less reliable as renewables have grown during the last decade. Does this sound right to you?

I shouldnt have to explain such simple economics. It's the same reason we subsidize oil: So we can make it readily available and when there is increased demand, there's a job to be done.

By subsidizing the green sector, it opens up money flow allowing companies to be created or allows pre-existing companies to hire more employees. Result: Unemployed and underemployed find a new avenue for work, and satisfying work if you believe in it. That's a blessing since most service and labor jobs are soul crushing monotony.

The green sector contains thousands of operations like zipcar, bike-share programs, improving waste management, and of course what you're think of: Solar and wind. It's much larger than just solar and wind; it's an approach on how to manage society more sensibly than we are, just like cutting millions of acres of old growth forests around the world is an approach to sustaining the demands of a consumer economy.

gnarly, first, welcome to usmb, and i hope you are enjoying the boards.

i think the essence of what you asked is "how does adding energy (more watts available) make energy less reliable?"

this is a lot more complex issue than you realize. A percentage of green energy businesses are greatly suspected to be quid-quo-pro political payoffs like solyndra likely was. 18 months after this business received over half a billion dollars, its owners deigned it fit to dump 1100+ employees overnight with the only notice being posted to the company's locked doors the day it officially quit business with bankruptcy pending. What's that? $535,000,000 of taxpayer's money immediately transferred to the company's owners who paid them back by running with the money and leaving the city of fremont, california and surrounding communities with a huge number of americans unemployed, all at the same time. After considerable sidestepping the obstructive american government, a few investigators who wanted to know what happened and who did what, found that the money was handed over to one of obama's largest supporter's investment portfolio, and some reimbursed others, including one of nancy pelosi's bils. It frankly, wreaked not only of nepotism, but quid-pro-quo thanks for supporting the obama campaign donors.

That said, here's what happens to a company that has invested all it has in public service to communities, businesses, hospitals, shopping malls, manufacturers, industries, and mining operations, and serving them with steady service, 24/7 with as few down line time as possible, which in my husband's service may have been nil to low most years (less than 15 minutes), and there was a 4 or 5 year period in which there were not any outages. One year, there was an 8-foot snow, which caused a few hour-long outages around the area, but the -40f year (in the 70s) caused country outages of 6 hours in some places, and less than an hour in the city limits. Fortunately, he had an astute team of professionals whose lives were dedicated to keeping people powered in cold weather, and they were in the top 2% of the nation in service and the bottom 2% in costs.

People who ran their own windmills (not many) spent an average of $40,000, and their return was $4.80 per month off on their bills for electricity that was produced. When it froze, their blades froze, too. When it was hot, the wind stopped blowing quite often. It wasn't the power company's fault. The people who invested all that money came to realize their payback on this primitive "green energy" plan wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Can you imagine the horror of investing $40,000 in the market and getting back under $58.00 for the year.

It's gotten sillier than that. The government never, never contacted the people who basically wasted tens of thousands of dollars. Noooooo. Instead, using basically the same equipment, the government guaranteed to back certain people 100% with taxpayer's money, and you can better believe that at this point, billions and billions of dollars are being paid back for that foolhardy decision to give democrats a huge boost to their hurting image after carter, after clinton, and now after obama.

What does it take to convince the democrats that throwing the taxpayer's money away on nefarious failed green projects like windmill turbines in order to get votes by obfuscating the reality of the ripoff to the public is a good thing?

I'm just speechless that the democrats would engage in this kind of a ripoff of the american public "because we can!!!!"

i'm so not thrilled.

i hope you have an answer about how the democrats are going to pay back the america taxpayers holding the bag for this fiscal fiasco?

I'm all ears, honest.

post of the year award here ^^^



Brilliant stuff.


The whole "at what cost" dynamic explained to perfection. Results don't matter to the far left.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me point out that your backups run little. Significantly less fuel is consumed. That is the point.

Yes, spending billions on equipment you will now use a fraction of the time, increasing the cost per kilowatt, is exactly the point.

But at least you top it all off with more expensive, less reliable "green energy".

 

[Abraham3]

Once you guys wake up (U.P.) from your daze and realize that AGW poses a real threat to you and your descendants, you'll feel a lot better about alternative energy.

That equipment you think they spent billions on - it will be used just as much as they ever planned on using it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once you guys wake up (U.P.) from your daze and realize that AGW poses a real threat to you and your descendants, you'll feel a lot better about alternative energy.

That equipment you think they spent billions on - it will be used just as much as they ever planned on using it.

How many trillions should we spend on alternative energy?
How much lower will CO2 levels be in 2080, as a result?
Show your work.

 

[gnarlylove]

This back and forth of non-points infused with conservative talking points has been helpful.

I've confirmed that ideology is stronger than any reality. That research has been demoted to opinion--sources determine truth, not truth determines what is written. That disagreement is an impasse and we have no business engaging in argument to overcome the impasse except for personal amusement--the opposite of musement. To contextualize it, you have your sources and they are called facts. Sources that oppose your views are given lotsa names but stupid will suffice.

Thus our problem becomes not that facts must reflect reality but that they must reflect our deeply held values. Those values were determined long before any of us "matured" or became adults, before we could navigate the complexity. Inculcation of societal values is virtually complete by 19. Most academic pursuits begins then, but by that time we are seeking facts or more accurately the sources that reflect our beliefs. There are a few individuals that evaluate and reevaluate why they were there or what life is about but the overwhelming majority had a pretty good idea of what the world was about and what they wanted out of it: comfort and security. Indeed, these are the cornerstones of American life.

People don't like to be challenged on their beliefs and certainly do not challenge their OWN beliefs--that's egotistical suicide. One of the most widely held societal values is not to confront one another. So in confronting skepticism on climate change or deforestation or glaciers receding, what matters first is one's beliefs, not the science or facts.

Armed with this understanding, your tactics will be to apply that analysis to me, and deny it as being applicable for yourselves. Perhaps not, in which case I salute your courage to go against your own values.

Let me preemptively respond: I admit values have an influence in my cognition and are fundamental to my interpretations of the world. The difference between us is I have spent my conscious life, from 15 on with one constant guide: being honest with myself. This has been a great challenge because it demands you question your own motives and even jettison them just for the sake of understanding alternatives. Thus, I've lived parts of my life with extremely discomfort over the choices I made. But as a result, I gained more knowledge what it was like to be someone who I would never identify with. This naturally expands one's ability to experience a different perspective or struggle--known as empathy.

I understood your perspective early on: you felt I was personally attacking you because I disagreed with your deeply held beliefs. So no wonder we saw so many personal attacks and name calling, it's the natural response to feel threatened when views that make up your values and hence actions are challenged.

I should have been more clear and sympathetic to your beliefs. I understand they mean so much to you that you think I'm "lecturing" you and denouncing you, rather than a belief or "fact." I have conceded points where I saw my error, as I concede my understanding of the grid to have been simple. So basically the grid can not experience more watts by merely adding another energy source, it remains at the same gigwatt but reduces energy from other sources?

But such a concession plays no role in countering central points that have been rehashed on previous pages. What matters in the end is I have read the wrong sources. I guess I'll fire up some Fred Singer, Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, DonorTrust, Hearltand Institute among plenty of others. When I am finished, I will promptly agree with you on every point you make. How could I not when they have billions of dollars funding not science based research but advertising and media research on how best to frame the debates.

The contemporary and single greatest issue with climate change is that it has dismissible impacts on living generations. Living people have no need to even contemplate rise in sea levels or the termination of coral. The issues that impact us RIGHT NOW is whether we have enough money to live and buy what we desire. So it's the easiest thing in the world and makes sense, speciously, to drone on and deny climate change regardless of what 97% of climate scientists say.

Americans have been convinced through major funding that climate science is dubious. And given the harsh economic climate for the heartland, action to slow climate change causes disruption through mildly increased taxes among other perceived inconveniences--like having to live with nature rather than in spite of it.

So when you read your "infallible sources" and take a stand against taxes, I cannot argue with such an entrenched view. It literally makes up your core identity and so no matter who challenges it and no matter what evidence is proffered, you can dismiss it based on greater principles--you and your identity.

Fine. I get it and we have nothing to do but humor/anger one another. I won't challenge your doctrine because in principle it cannot be challenged, as I've learned. So if you won't believe climate change is fueled by humanity and threatens future stability, I ask you to ask yourself honestly, think of your children and when they have children, and you turn out to be wrong, how would you feel knowing your children/grandchildren are suffering as a direct result of climate change that you were determined to dismiss?

If I'm wrong, another 100 years of perfect petroleum summer. If you're wrong, the world's worst disaster ever recorded and will continue indefinitely. Don't take this as my definitive argument for why you should believe climate change. It is not an argument per se, just as Pascal's Wager is not an argument. I don't intend you to take away anything meaningful but on the off chance you care about your children, you might think about doing some more homework, just to be sure you right. I encourage you to watch the first minute of this video

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRVlIT__w6A#t=76]Rep. Inglis attacks GOP on climate change - YouTube[/ame]

 

[gnarlylove]

btw tenn, I liked your comment about your attractiveness. witty and silly. my style (in life not on this board)

 

[flacaltenn]

Gnarlyone---
Cant quote your post above because im on a mere tablet and its awkward to navigate that much text and wisdom. There's a whole class of society that peg their values to beliefs without proof, and their knowledge to truths without facts. These are my religious buds whom I greatly admire. They drag themselves out of bed every Sunday morning to attend services because they are disciplined. They have rich and meaningful traditions and practices. And they perform worlds of good by pldging their wealth and volunteering their time.. Feel the same about some very zealot environuts --- like maybe you..

But I dont want EITHER group of those folks modeling my society thru political edict or having power to DICTATE my values or choices. Leadership comes from INFORMED beliefs. Not from religious dogma. So bless your beliefs -- just make sure you have the same HUMILITY as your religious cousins and dont ASSUME that beliefs alone give you a natural right to interpret "reality" for the rest of us..... Then we're cool.... If you LIVE on beliefs, and fear that knowledge and facts would compromise those beliefs, then at least have the decency to not attempt to impose those beliefs on others...

'Bout covers it dont it? Except for the jab you took about what sources I used to arrive at my values.. I stick to the science forums largely because im not comfortable shilling my political beliefs to others.. Of course THEIR political choices all suck, but I know their not buying into 3rd party access or Libertarian party politics.. So unless its FACTUAL -- I dont bother.. so if you think any facts ive presented here are wrong or are politicized or are even debatable -- PLEASE POINT THAT OUT... Ill be really pissed at myself if you catch me quoting unsubstantiated dogma. Beyond that --- I cant help it if my facts and conclusions resemble CATO or the Pope or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet for that matter..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Within the field of politics who ever that has the government and the government is making our goal towards those issues. Well, is the real winners.

Think about it.

 

[Kosh]

I've confirmed that ideology is stronger than any reality.

Yes it is and the ideology being pushed by the AGW cultists prove that they hate science especially if that science contradicts their religion.

 

[Abraham3]

Gnarlyone---
Cant quote your post above because im on a mere tablet and its awkward to navigate that much text and wisdom. There's a whole class of society that peg their values to beliefs without proof, and their knowledge to truths without facts. These are my religious buds whom I greatly admire. They drag themselves out of bed every Sunday morning to attend services because they are disciplined. They have rich and meaningful traditions and practices. And they perform worlds of good by pldging their wealth and volunteering their time.. Feel the same about some very zealot environuts --- like maybe you..

But I dont want EITHER group of those folks modeling my society thru political edict or having power to DICTATE my values or choices. Leadership comes from INFORMED beliefs. Not from religious dogma. So bless your beliefs -- just make sure you have the same HUMILITY as your religious cousins and dont ASSUME that beliefs alone give you a natural right to interpret "reality" for the rest of us..... Then we're cool.... If you LIVE on beliefs, and fear that knowledge and facts would compromise those beliefs, then at least have the decency to not attempt to impose those beliefs on others...

'Bout covers it dont it? Except for the jab you took about what sources I used to arrive at my values.. I stick to the science forums largely because im not comfortable shilling my political beliefs to others.. Of course THEIR political choices all suck, but I know their not buying into 3rd party access or Libertarian party politics.. So unless its FACTUAL -- I dont bother.. so if you think any facts ive presented here are wrong or are politicized or are even debatable -- PLEASE POINT THAT OUT... Ill be really pissed at myself if you catch me quoting unsubstantiated dogma. Beyond that --- I cant help it if my facts and conclusions resemble CATO or the Pope or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet for that matter..

Minor confusion here Sirrah. The folks at the IPCC and those who back them have shitloads of evidence. It is you who holds an unsupported view.

 

[SSDD]

Once you guys wake up (U.P.) from your daze and realize that AGW poses a real threat to you and your descendants, you'll feel a lot better about alternative energy.

That equipment you think they spent billions on - it will be used just as much as they ever planned on using it.

There is no AGW. But you are correct in that the idea of AGW is going to put a huge and entirely unnecessary financial burden on both me and my decendents as a result of the billions upon billions being wasted on a hoax.

 

[SSDD]

Gnarlyone---
Cant quote your post above because im on a mere tablet and its awkward to navigate that much text and wisdom. There's a whole class of society that peg their values to beliefs without proof, and their knowledge to truths without facts. These are my religious buds whom I greatly admire. They drag themselves out of bed every Sunday morning to attend services because they are disciplined. They have rich and meaningful traditions and practices. And they perform worlds of good by pldging their wealth and volunteering their time.. Feel the same about some very zealot environuts --- like maybe you..

But I dont want EITHER group of those folks modeling my society thru political edict or having power to DICTATE my values or choices. Leadership comes from INFORMED beliefs. Not from religious dogma. So bless your beliefs -- just make sure you have the same HUMILITY as your religious cousins and dont ASSUME that beliefs alone give you a natural right to interpret "reality" for the rest of us..... Then we're cool.... If you LIVE on beliefs, and fear that knowledge and facts would compromise those beliefs, then at least have the decency to not attempt to impose those beliefs on others...

'Bout covers it dont it? Except for the jab you took about what sources I used to arrive at my values.. I stick to the science forums largely because im not comfortable shilling my political beliefs to others.. Of course THEIR political choices all suck, but I know their not buying into 3rd party access or Libertarian party politics.. So unless its FACTUAL -- I dont bother.. so if you think any facts ive presented here are wrong or are politicized or are even debatable -- PLEASE POINT THAT OUT... Ill be really pissed at myself if you catch me quoting unsubstantiated dogma. Beyond that --- I cant help it if my facts and conclusions resemble CATO or the Pope or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet for that matter..

Minor confusion here Sirrah. The folks at the IPCC and those who back them have shitloads of evidence. It is you who holds an unsupported view.

No they don't. What they do have is a weaker argument in favor of AGW with each new update.....weaker argument, less evidence, more confidence.

 

[polarbear]

Minor confusion here Sirrah. The folks at the IPCC and those who back them have shitloads of evidence. It is you who holds an unsupported view.

What`s the matter with you ?
Haven`t you figured out yet that aside from 2 or 3 alarmist freaks nobody else cares for the crap you post...as in all these other threads you keep posting ?
Isn`t there any news about a junk of ice that broke off somewhere or some Hamlet in Australia where it`s too hot?
No?
Then I got some news for you just how ridiculous (and desperate) "the folks at the IPCC " with their "shitloads of evidence" are getting:
I`ll post the original later on down below, but this one quotes it conveniently in English
Spiegel: ?Dispute With Scientists: Politicians Want To Ban Warming Stop From Climate Report?

“Dispute With Scientists: Politicians Want To Ban Warming Stop From Climate Report”

Leading scientists are contradicting the political delegates. Jochem Marotzke, President of the German Climate Consortium and the leading scientific representative at the negotiations in Stockholm promises: ‘We are going to confront this issue head on.’ The UN IPCC has to accept a discussion about the temperature stop.”

[...] Against the will of many scientists, especially delegates of the German government want to keep the pause in global warming of the last 15 years out of the IPCC Report’s summary.”

And here is the Article that was published today:
Klima 2013: Neue Daten zu Erwärmung und Klimawandel von Nasa und NOAA - SPIEGEL ONLINE

And this one:
EU-Klimaziele: Connie Hedegaard ist Kommissarin Hilflos - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Neue EU-Klimaziele: Kommissarin Hilflos

EU-Kommissarin Hedegaard

Für die Zukunft enthält der Vorschlag der EU-Kommission wenig Brauchbares. Umwelt- und Entwicklungsverbände geißeln die "Selbstdemontage der europäischen Klimapolitik" - und liegen damit richtig. Kommissarin Hedegaard lässt sich dazu folgendermaßen zitieren: "Obwohl so viele gemutmaßt haben, dass heute nichts Ambitioniertes aus der Kommission kommen würde, haben wir es geschafft."
So klingt es, wenn man partout kein Scheitern eingestehen kann.

Oh don`t you just love her title "Kommissar"...which in German is the same title given to communists..too bad that it does not have quite the same connotation in English.
Anyway she is "ratlos" meaning "clue less" how to the IPCC should address the mounting criticism they are facing in Europe.

Perhaps you could tell her about "the shitload of evidence" you got.

 

[gnarlylove]

Sounds like AGW (cultist) is another word for mental patient. Given its ceaseless repetition, it sounds like the shoe is on the other foot.

But perhaps this question can stimulate the only worthwhile debate:
What if climate change skeptics are wrong?

I'm not talking cartoonish nuclear holocaust Armageddon, where everyone is dead sorta thing. No, I'm merely ascribing to the cracks in the biosphere that are taking place where the lot of humanity suffers; how much suffering is moot--death will NOT be absolute; only some will perish like we currently have from famines and droughts.

 

[gnarlylove]

What`s the matter with you ?
Haven`t you figured out yet that aside from 2 or 3 alarmist freaks nobody else cares for the crap you post...as in all these other threads you keep posting ?

ABSOLUTE TEXTBOOK case of climate change denial.

Aggression and childlike fit of insolence.

Proud to be the ALPHA DOG? I hope so because if you weren't, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Doubting your own 100% denial is the day pigs fly.

 

[gnarlylove]

I know no climate change denier has the attention span to watch this PBS documentary that explains why they are "winning." I jest, I know climate deniers are people too, I just don't think they believe climate change proponents are.
This video is highly recommended for AGW cultists and human beings alike!

Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[flacaltenn]

I know no climate change denier has the attention span to watch this PBS documentary that explains why they are "winning." I jest, I know climate deniers are people too, I just don't think they believe climate change proponents are.
This video is highly recommended for AGW cultists and human beings alike!

Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS

You measure attentions spans with PBS documentaries?? What a neat device. Alert the APA -- we have a new ADHD screening test..

I measure attention spans with how long a poster can discuss a topic without
wildly arcing into space.. But wtf do I know???

 

[gnarlylove]

i said i jest, buddy pal