Why we should listen to the 97%

[daveman]

Daveman -

This statement is false.

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,

I have now asked you five times to correct it.

I have to ask - are you not able to understand material you posted, or simply unable to represent it honestly?

I already corrected you on this once.

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that.

Why should I admit something that's not true?

Next time - read the material before you post it!!

I did. Obviously, you didn't.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”​

36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”​

24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”​

17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”​

10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”​

5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change. The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts. Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false. You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?

Now stop claiming falsehoods.

 

[daveman]

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

We can only hope you are.

Saigon giving out lessons in capitalism?

Now that's a hoot!

I thought it was ironic, too....but just on this thread we see that Todd did not know that the coal and nuclear industries are heavily subsidised, and you didn't know that most subsidies paid into Renewables are by way of Feed-in Tariffs.

You have to ask yourself - if someone didn't know that coal receives subsidies - what business do they have whining about energy subsidies in the first place?

For homework from class - both of you need to decide if you are for or against government subsidising energy producers.

Unsurprisingly, you ignored this post -- as if it means it doesn't exist:

BriPat -

Can you name one company making solar panels whose product isn't subsidized? . . . . . .

If you don't includ feed-in tariffs then yes, of course.....honestly, where do you get your information from?

How about Catalina?

?World?s largest? thin-film solar plant begins operations - PV-Tech

btw, Can YOU name a coal or nuclear company which has never received subsidies?

Catalina is not a producer of solar panels. It's a power plant.

They bought their panels from Solar Frontier of Japan -- and Solar Frontier receives subsidies from the Japanese government.

So you were wrong twice in your post.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, business writing off their expenses is not a subsidy.
Here's a subsidy I would support for green energy.
After eliminating all "green" mandates, a 0% tax rate on green profits.

Wouldn't help the money losers.

Why support that? Why shouldn't these companies pay taxes like everyone else?

I support dropping all corporate taxes to 0%.

That does not mean it is all right to change a single industries tax rate while leaving the others in place. That is wrong even if you are looking to get them all there in the end. You are moving AWAY from that and, instead, running to special exclusions when you support such a maneuver.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

At the start of our discussion I suggested that you possibly lacked the cojones to actually in engage in debate.

The fact that you obviously did not know that the coal and nuclear industries have received three times the amount of subsidies solar and wind have received rather proves this is the case.

Having spend 10 pages wailing about the evils of subsidies, you then change your mind and suggest that subsidies either don't exist as a concept, or they aren't actually a problem.

I don't think you are terribly smart - but you are smart enough to know that your position makes absolutely no sense at all.

You either believe government should subsidide energy companies, or you believe it should not.

I suggest you go away and do a bit of reading about subsidies, and then decide what it is you actually believe.

On the upside, I don't remember when I have last so enjoyed a discussion here!

You forgot the rest of the paragraph from your source.

However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion – a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Thanks for trying, it was very entertaining.
If you ever find a specific fossil fuel subsidy you'd like to discuss, please let me know.

 

[bripat9643]

the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.

And your point would be...?

The point is that all the subsidies to "green energy" are compressed into a short time period whereas subsidies to conventional forms of energy are spread over a period of 40 years. They may sum to the same amount, but the rate of subsidies for green energy in recent years is far higher. That's why the people who produced this bogus statistic used such a long time period.

 

[Snookie]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

The Obama Admin has spent, as of last October, 7.5 billion dollars on failed or failing green energy companies.

And it seems that green energy and corruption go hand-in-hand:

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.​

That's what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace. It doesn't invest money wisely; it wastes it on cronies and donors.

Less than the amount spent on war in a month.

 

[westwall]

the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.

And your point would be...?

If they actually produced something I don't think we would care. But, as it stands, 7.5 billion taxpayer dollars have been taken away from those who can most use them, and given to wealthy friends of Obama as payoffs for their support in his elections.

You see, the tax breaks that the fossil fuel industry receives, (and I don't agree with them getting that FYI) but they are breaks, not subsidies, there is a huge difference, and more to the point....they ACTUALLY DELIVER A PRODUCT THAT EVERYONE USES.

 

[westwall]

Daveman -

This statement is false.

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,

I have now asked you five times to correct it.

I have to ask - are you not able to understand material you posted, or simply unable to represent it honestly?

I already corrected you on this once.

Why should I admit something that's not true?

Next time - read the material before you post it!!

I did. Obviously, you didn't.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”​

36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”​

24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”​

17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”​

10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”​

5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change. The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts. Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false. You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?

Now stop claiming falsehoods.

saggy can't. His honesty is on the same level as his knowledge of Finnish geography.

 

[bripat9643]

the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.

And your point would be...?

If they actually produced something I don't think we would care. But, as it stands, 7.5 billion taxpayer dollars have been taken away from those who can most use them, and given to wealthy friends of Obama as payoffs for their support in his elections.

You see, the tax breaks that the fossil fuel industry receives, (and I don't agree with them getting that FYI) but they are breaks, not subsidies, there is a huge difference, and more to the point....they ACTUALLY DELIVER A PRODUCT THAT EVERYONE USES.

It's far more than $7.5 billion. That figure doesn't include things like the $5000 the government subsidizes to the price of buying an electric car. It doesn't include the subsidy that the purchasers of solar panels receive. There are many $billions of subsidies other than the ones that go directly to Obama's buddies and their fraudulent businesses.

 

[Abraham3]

And your point would be...?

If they actually produced something I don't think we would care. But, as it stands, 7.5 billion taxpayer dollars have been taken away from those who can most use them, and given to wealthy friends of Obama as payoffs for their support in his elections.

You see, the tax breaks that the fossil fuel industry receives, (and I don't agree with them getting that FYI) but they are breaks, not subsidies, there is a huge difference, and more to the point....they ACTUALLY DELIVER A PRODUCT THAT EVERYONE USES.

It's far more than $7.5 billion. That figure doesn't include things like the $5000 the government subsidizes to the price of buying an electric car. It doesn't include the subsidy that the purchasers of solar panels receive. There are many $billions of subsidies other than the ones that go directly to Obama's buddies and their fraudulent businesses.

I'm glad to see you make a distinction between "breaks" and "subsidies" cause the money that people can save buying a green car or making energy improvements to their homes, those sorts of things are all done as tax BREAKS. No subsidies. Breaks.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[daveman]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

The Obama Admin has spent, as of last October, 7.5 billion dollars on failed or failing green energy companies.

And it seems that green energy and corruption go hand-in-hand:

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.​

That's what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace. It doesn't invest money wisely; it wastes it on cronies and donors.

Less than the amount spent on war in a month.

 

[freedombecki]

Freedom -

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

I have no idea. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time only real indsutry insiders could have known how Solyndra's tech compared with that of the Chinese. More than a few German countries lost their lunch to the Chinese on that one as well. My guess is that few people knew how far ahead the Chinese were.

But the point Todd is struggling to grasp is that Solyndra does not = solar anymore so than GM = cars.

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

Because in capitalism, the best company with the best product wins. The others lose.

In Solar, it is companies like Suntech and Yingli Solar who are winning.

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

No.

 

[flacaltenn]

Freedom -

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

I have no idea. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time only real indsutry insiders could have known how Solyndra's tech compared with that of the Chinese. More than a few German countries lost their lunch to the Chinese on that one as well. My guess is that few people knew how far ahead the Chinese were.

But the point Todd is struggling to grasp is that Solyndra does not = solar anymore so than GM = cars.

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

Because in capitalism, the best company with the best product wins. The others lose.

In Solar, it is companies like Suntech and Yingli Solar who are winning.

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

No.

THis wasn't about Capitalism. It was about jerks in govt who didn't comprehend technology, pissing away other people's money on stuff they didn't understand..

Lemme explain.. Solyndra was based on a GIMMICK.. The feature of their solar panel was an expensive optical concentrator. If this had been a great idea -- it would have been picked up from the ashes.. It wasn't..

The Chinese on the other hand -- aren't swayed by gimmicks. They know that lowering the prime cost of the panels will win over more complicated ways of raising panel efficiency.. This was about the govt trying to pick winners/losers and therefore stifling other developers in the field.

It was also about business primadonnas who decided to spend TONS of money on a palacial NEW production facility.. As opposed to more modest EXISTING buildings, they had to splurge to spend all that govt largess.

Solar is a MATURE technology.. Shouldn't be expecting MASSIVE breakthrus in performance. It's a commodity item and the Chinese have the right idea. High Yield, Low Price, Reliability, Simple Designs.

 

[westwall]

Freedom -

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

I have no idea. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time only real indsutry insiders could have known how Solyndra's tech compared with that of the Chinese. More than a few German countries lost their lunch to the Chinese on that one as well. My guess is that few people knew how far ahead the Chinese were.

But the point Todd is struggling to grasp is that Solyndra does not = solar anymore so than GM = cars.

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

Because in capitalism, the best company with the best product wins. The others lose.

In Solar, it is companies like Suntech and Yingli Solar who are winning.

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

No.

THis wasn't about Capitalism. It was about jerks in govt who didn't comprehend technology, pissing away other people's money on stuff they didn't understand..

Lemme explain.. Solyndra was based on a GIMMICK.. The feature of their solar panel was an expensive optical concentrator. If this had been a great idea -- it would have been picked up from the ashes.. It wasn't..

The Chinese on the other hand -- aren't swayed by gimmicks. They know that lowering the prime cost of the panels will win over more complicated ways of raising panel efficiency.. This was about the govt trying to pick winners/losers and therefore stifling other developers in the field.

It was also about business primadonnas who decided to spend TONS of money on a palacial NEW production facility.. As opposed to more modest EXISTING buildings, they had to splurge to spend all that govt largess.

Solar is a MATURE technology.. Shouldn't be expecting MASSIVE breakthrus in performance. It's a commodity item and the Chinese have the right idea. High Yield, Low Price, Reliability, Simple Designs.

Yup. But even Suntech and Yingli, which saggy is all hot and bothered about, get subsidies from the Chinese government. Don't they all....


"Chinese Solar Subsidy Boost

The Chinese government has always been a strong benefactor of the country’s ailing solar sector, and this week news emerged that the Chinese Ministry of Finance plans to double its subsides for solar projects to $2 billion, channeling these funds to construct around 5.2 GW of demonstration solar capacity across the country. The incentives under this scheme are as high as 25 yuan (about $4) per watt for independent power plants. [5] While we believe these these subsidies will serve to boost domestic demand for solar products and partly alleviate the industries pain, they will not be a panacea for the industries woes given the extent of dependence of the Chinese firms on the export market. About 90% of Chinese solar production is exported.

Separately, China’s Ministry of Science and Technology announced that it has selected projects with a total of about 2.8 GW of capacity to receive subsidies under the country’s Golden Sun Program. The payouts could total as much as $2.5 billion if the projects are completed by June 2013. Yingli Green Energy is expected to supply about 10% of the panels for the projects. [6]"

Solar Weekly: Rising US Installations And China's Subsidy Boost -- Trefis


https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/suntech-vies-for-big-share-of-china-subsidy-program

Yingli looks to take advantage of new Chinese solar subsidies -Recharge News

 

[Snookie]

It's hard to compete against against slave labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's hard to compete against against slave labor.

That's why the South won the Civil War.

 

[Abraham3]

Now stop claiming falsehoods.

Besides having been designed and conducted by one of the biggest petro-shills around, yours surveys "geo-scientists and engineers".

The 97% figure has always been identified as the proportion of active climate scientists who accept AGW.

The two results are not mutually exclusive. And the significance of the overwhelming majority of experts in this particular field is not deterred by the lesser support among those lacking familiarity with climate science.

 

[westwall]

It's hard to compete against against slave labor.

No shit Sherlock. So why even try to do it? Why should we spend billions developing a new technology only to have the Chinese steal it, reverse engineer it, and then shove it down our throats at a cost we can't come close to matching. Only a fucking idiot would pour money into that crap. Let them develop it and then we steal it from them. Give them a dose of their own damned medicine for once.

 

[westwall]

Now stop claiming falsehoods.

Besides having been designed and conducted by one of the biggest petro-shills around, your survey "geo-scientists and engineers".

The 97% figure has always been identified as the proportion of active climate scientists who accept AGW.

The two results are not mutually exclusive. And the significance of the overwhelming majority of experts in this particularly field is not deterred by the lesser support among those lacking familiarity with climate science.

Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number....

 

[Abraham3]

Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number.

As noted prior, the denialist camp prefers to pretend that the several other surveys do not exist. A very large majority of climate scientists accept AGW. Regardless of what nonsense yous spew, that is a fact.