Wind power cost competitive with natural gas, study finds

Mar 27, 2014 by Diane Stirling

(Phys.org) —The costs of using wind energy and natural gas for electricity are virtually equal when accounting for the full private and social costs of each, making wind a competitive energy source for the United States, according to a new study on the federal tax credit for wind energy.

Just released by researchers at Syracuse University and the University of California, the analysis shows that wind energy comes within .35 cents per kWh when levelized over the 20-year life of a typical wind contract, compared on an equivalent basis to the full costs for -fired energy, according to Jason Dedrick, associate professor at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies (iSchool).

"The true cost of electricity from wind power and natural gas are effectively indistinguishable, yet because the cost of carbon emissions is not included in the market price of gas, wind has not been a competitive form of energy use in most of the United States, without government pricingsupport," Dedrick said.

The analysis starts from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of the lifetime "levelized" cost of electricity from a new wind farm, and also from an advanced combined cycle gas plant. The analysis develops a new metric that incorporates long-term factors which are not included in the DOE numbers. Accordingly, the study also reveals that the recently-expired Production Tax Credit for wind makes up for the lack of any mechanism to make fossil fuel generators pay for the cost of carbon emissions, Dedrick noted.

Researchers for the study, "Visualizing the Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy," in addition to Dedrick, are Kenneth L. Kraemer, research professor, University of California, Irvine; and Greg Linden, senior research associate at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gas Appears Cheaper

Current national-average estimates from the DOE are 8.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for wind and 6.6 cents for gas-fired energy—making gas appear as a much cheaper alternative, Linden noted. Incorporating the new metric into the analysis, however, shows that the "is actually compensating for a market failure to price the future cost to society of carbon emissions," Linden explained. "In the absence of a , the PTC can serve as a stand-in to make the market reflect the true costs of energy."

The study incorporates these aspects:

Future costs of carbon dioxide emissions are added to the price of gas (using the government's most recent Interagency Working Group average of $43 per metric ton)—at a cost of 1.6 cents per kWh.

The cost of supply intermittency (the cost to utilities to compensate for wind stoppages and variations) is added to the price of wind—estimated at 0.5 cents per kWh.

The cost of correcting natural gas price volatility for 20 years (the length of time for which wind prices are typically fixed) is added to the price of gas— estimated at 0.65 cents per kWh.

Adding these costs together finds that the adjusted levelized cost of electricity for wind is 9.2 cents per kWh, versus 8.85 cents per kWh for gas.
(See accompanying chart, above)

The components of the adjusted levelized cost, reported here as averages, are actually estimates that fall in a range, Linden noted. "The result is even more favorable for wind if you consider some of the larger possible values for carbon emissions," he added. Further details can be found in a brief working paper available at ischool.syr.edu/media/document… /2014/3/PTC32514.pdf .

Dedrick noted that while the amounts discussed here are averages, the costs of wind and gas vary considerably across the U.S. The price difference between wind and gas power is actually less than 1.6 cents per kWh in many regions of the country, "and that is where the PTC will have its impact," he concluded.

Support for PTC?

The question of whether the federal government should support has been debated by Congress for more than two decades, at least since the PTC was created in 1992, according to Kraemer. He said the credit has been implemented in an on-again/off-again fashion, expiring five times since then. Until now, the tax credit has always been renewed for another year or two. This year, Kraemer said, President Obama's proposed budget for the Department of Energy calls for permanently extending the PTC, at a cost of $19.2 billion over the next 10 years.

"Effectively Indistinguishable"

Dedrick suggested that "Since the levelized value of the PTC happens to be very close to the average estimated cost of carbon from a natural gas plant, a long-term extension of the PTC would have a similar effect to a carbon tax in terms of the relative price of electricity from wind and gas." He continued, "Given the ranges of the estimates for each of the costs involved, our research shows that the true cost of electricity from wind power and natural gas are effectively indistinguishable. Yet, because the cost of carbon emissions is not included in the market price of gas, wind is not competitive in most of the U.S. without government support. An alternative would be to create a pricing mechanism for , either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme. However, neither of those options seems likely in the current U.S. political environment," Dedrick added.

Explore further: How effective are renewable energy subsidies? Maybe not effective as originally thoughts, finds news study

More information: A brief working paper is available online: ischool.syr.edu/media/document… /2014/3/PTC32514.pdf.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

How affordable is alternative energy?

Aug 01, 2012

Alternative energy sources that are cost-competitive with fossil fuels may be closer than most people realize. Recent renewable energy research has shown that solar, hydropower, wind and other alternative sources are closing ...

Will wind tax credit blow away?

Dec 21, 2012

Geronimo Wind Energy recently won regulators' permission to build two wind farms in Minnesota. What happens next for the ventures depends partly on the political winds in the nation's capital.

Reducing cash bite of wind power

Mar 29, 2012

The State of Illinois is facing an important renewable energy deadline in 2025, and Northwestern University's Harold H. Kung has a piece of advice for Springfield to consider now: Investment Tax Credit.

Recommended for you

First-of-a-kind supercritical CO2 turbine

Oct 20, 2014

Toshiba Corporation today announced that it will supply a first-of-a-kind supercritical CO2 turbine to a demonstration plant being built in Texas, USA. The plant will be developed by NET Power, LLC, a U.S. venture, together w ...

Drive system saves space and weight in electric cars

Oct 17, 2014

Siemens has developed a solution for integrating an electric car's motor and inverter in a single housing. Until now, the motor and the inverter, which converts the battery's direct current into alternating ...

User comments : 148

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 27, 2014
Again, this is just more propaganda from the Ministry of Truth. 1 KWH of coal or nuclear electricity costs about 3 cents to produce. One KWH of gas electricity costs 5 cents. Plus that the intermittency factor is way off for wind because one still needs the gas fired plants to be in standby mode while the wind is blowing. How can you assign a social cost to CO2 when it's effects are not understood?
MR166
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2014
I made a cost error here by using cost figures from 2005. Thus gas will cost 3 cents or so more.

Also they neglected to add a human cost to the neighbors of the wind farm. The low frequency pulses generated by the turbines are very harmful and have not been addressed.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2014
LOL....an externality like a carbon tax is their basis for a "level playing field".

GAWD humans can rationalize ANYTHING.

Also I'd seriously question the intermittency "figure" in their chart. It's roughly 40%, which means that's 40% MORE cost straight on the top for wind or solar power. In order to be on par it's got to be at least 60% cheaper when it's producing power....period.

Unless of course we find a way to make the wind blow all the time or the sun shine all the time.
Jizby
Mar 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
Yes it was a horrid winter but we cannot count on this not being the norm.

http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html

You can see that gas supplies are way down. If fracking is supposed to substitute for the GOM gas supplies where is the gas? The jury is still out as far as the economics of shale gas and oil is concerned. It is still unknown how much gas and oil these wells are capable of producing before they run dry. The US is making a HUGE mistake by shutting down the coal generating plants. I expect electricity prices to skyrocket in the not to distant future due to the closing of the coal generating plants and a shortage of natural gas. If next winter is like this one energy inflation will cripple the US.
jackjump
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
Hell it can be competitive with burning coal, methane, oil, wood or manure too, just find an excuse to jack up the PTC high enough to make wind free. But why stop at leveling the playing field. Make it insanely profitable to produce wind power so that wind power outfits actually compete to buy customers to use their electricity. Then everybody will be ecstatic except those evil fossil fuel barons. I mean isn't it worth it to save the planet from certain destruction?

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2014
"What this shows is that the environmentalist mindset is informed far less by climate science or CO2 targets, than by a profound ideological aversion to 'our civilisation'. Even if the impact on the environment is negligible, a new energy source is still opposed. Which just goes to show it's the idea of expanding our energy supply itself that is anathema to the committed green."
http://www.spiked...e94VWgit
Returners
2 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
Does that idiot even realize what a carbon tax that big would do to the cost of food, clothes, or hell even just driving to work?

After all, nobody has offered an alternative to diesel powered trucking and trains, nor diesel powered shipping (except nuke reactors), so what is this supposed to offset?

How about your electric powered tractor for farming?

Once you give a government the power to tax carbon dioxide, you have officially sacrificed your very breath of life...it will just be a matter of time before they put a tax on life it self...

They'll tax:
Breathing
farting
tilling ground for a garden in your back yard
concrete foundations for homes
brick walls

Can you imagine being charged a $25 per year tax because you breathed out CO2? Plus you have to pay for the form on your taxes...

Like Sourdough Bread or French Bread?

Tough luck. "Leavened" Bread works via yeast, which works primarily via fermentation producing CO2...

Bread would be doubly taxed: Yeast and fuels.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
"Can you imagine being charged a $25 per year tax because you breathed out CO2? Plus you have to pay for the form on your taxes.."

Of course the "Poor" cannot afford to pay the $25/year exhalation fee so they will need be subsidized. Your fee will only be $75. That is only "fair".

Bob_Wallace
4 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2014
We can put a price on carbon without harming the economy. Simply take the revenue from the carbon tax and use it to subsidize the cost of electricity. That will cover most of the price increase that would be caused by the tax.

Then, for the remainder, take a portion of what we would save from the external costs of coal and bring the price of electricity back to where it was before.

We spend about $1 billion per day to deal with the health and environmental damage caused by burning coal. We could get coal off our grids in a few years and use those hundreds of billions for something more useful.

Like improving our schools and making higher education more affordable.

I wonder what the right would say if someone told them how much tax money it costs to keep burning coal....
Bob_Wallace
4 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
"Current national-average estimates from the DOE are 8.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for wind"

The average selling price (PPAs) for onshore wind in the US for 2011 and 2012 was 4 cents per kWh. The PTC is 2.3 cents per kWh for the first ten years of production. That means that over the normal 20 year life of a PPA the price of wind is lowered about 1.3 cents. 4 + 1.3 = 5.3.

Data from the DOE's 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report. It's on line.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
MR166 muttered oddly but, thats his style
... social cost to CO2 when it's effects are not understood?
You mean the social effects alone ?

Surely that can be derived systematically from long term studies given its Thermal properties as a Green House Gas are well known, studied for over a 100 years...

As for its physical effects beyond re-radiation, they are also well known & of course knowledge still increasing ie. 99% of all the Scientists that ever lived are alive today...!

Increasing CO2 levels raise ocean acidification, affecting crustacea
Some food plants & maybe others shift their local equlibria into protection mode,
this means a propensity to produce hydrocyanic acid = Cyanides ie. Poisonous, this is already affecting tubers, Eg Cassava crops in Africa & Clover a food for cattle, has the same issue...

So MR166, what precisely re CO2 effects are "..not understood.." ?

Mike Massen
Electronic Engineer, Food Scientist
http://niche.ii.net/physorg
alfie_null
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
Again, this is just more propaganda . . .

How can you assign a social cost to CO2 when it's effects are not understood? [sic]

Are you suggesting there is no cost? Or that it be ignored? Like: "I don't understand gravity, so I shall ignore it in my trajectory calculations".

Maybe _you_ don't understand the cost. I'd dispute it isn't understood to any degree.

I do understand propaganda, perhaps to your dismay.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
Data from the DOE's 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report. It's on line.

From the same govt that said if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
It is amazing that all of the so called scientists on this board are so ready to assign a negative cost to CO2 when it is nothing more than plant food. They are willing to accept 1 degree of cooling as a wonderful thing but look at one degree of warming as an apocalypse. History shows us that nothing could be further from the truth. Historically cool periods have been very hard on mankind and the warmer periods have been ones of great success.

Since we cannot have a constant climate which would you rather have global cooling or global warming???
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2014
LOL....an externality like a carbon tax is their basis for a "level playing field".

Why not? Or do you think people who cause damage should not be liable for cleaning it up?
If one technology harms the environment while another that delivers the same product does not - why exactly should the first one not be penalized in your opinion?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
MR166 hasnt understood
It is amazing that all of the so called scientists on this board are so ready to assign a negative cost to CO2 when it is nothing more than plant food.
LOOK re CO2:-
1. Plants change equilibria, cyanide
2. Ocean acidification
3. Fast Heat trapping
They are willing to accept 1 degree of cooling as a wonderful thing but look at one degree of warming as an apocalypse
The concern is the speed & comes with extra heat.
We are burning ~230,000 Liters Petrol/sec
History shows us that nothing could be further from the truth.
Wrong. Those times of very slow change were negligibly human induced
Historically cool periods have been very hard on mankind and the warmer periods have been ones of great success.
Depends on causal factors, since then population Much higher !
Since we cannot have a constant climate which would you rather have global cooling or global warming???
Climate of ~150 to 100 years ago would be a good ideal, think MR166 !
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
And yes, I do believe that our climate abounds with negative feedback loops that keep any of the negative effects of CO2 in check. Also, it has been proven that the earth's large climate changes caused the levels of CO2 to change not the other way around.

There is a big difference between CO2's effect's in some jar in a lab and it's effects in the atmosphere. The biggest threat to mankind is the fact that we will soon run out of inexpensive oil and gas. When that happens our cities will crumble and become even more impoverished. Starvation will be commonplace. Oil and gas should be reserved for transportation only. Nuclear power is a must and that should replace coal not natural gas.

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
What is 'fast heat'?

Mikey like Hottie and the other AGWites don't seem to have an understanding of perspective.
400 ppm => ppm means parts per million.
230,000l/sec, why is that a big deal? How does this compare to a continuously erupting volcano or to geysers at Yellowstone or black smokers on the bottom of the ocean?

I did a quick back of envelope calculation of the volume of high level nuclear waste being stored on site in the US. The volume would cover a US football field ~4 ft deep.
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
"We can put a price on carbon without harming the economy. Simply take the revenue from the carbon tax and use it to subsidize the cost of electricity. That will cover most of the price increase that would be caused by the tax."

More taxes, more government control, more socialism that is the progressives answer to everything. As for education, just take a look at the inflation rate of the cost of higher education, compare it to everything else and it is plain to see that more government funding is not the answer.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2014
Here is a little article from Dr. Fred Singer.

http://americanth...te_.html

I'll save the AGW crowd a post by repeating their mantra " That is meaningless since it appeared in American Thinker".
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2014
Yet another Doctor speaks out.

http://www.forbes...tterfeed
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
Why not? Or do you think people who cause damage should not be liable for cleaning it up?
If one technology harms the environment while another that delivers the same product does not - why exactly should the first one not be penalized in your opinion?

Because it has nothing whatever to do with science and everything to do with politics and economics.

I'm not talking about SHOULD or SHOULDN'T here. I'm talking about rationalizing your pet project (wind energy) into feasibility by imposing an arbitrary externality on it and calling it legitimate economics...
hangman04
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
with every article i see new costs, new contracdictory data....

Gas / protrol / coal should be exploited only by the industries which can not substitute these fossils with electricity and eventually gas and petrol should be from a carbon neutral source. Everything else should be green only, hopefully the design will advance fast enough to make the transition feasible from a cost perspective!
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
Because it has nothing whatever to do with science and everything to do with politics and economics.

Funny then how it's the scientists that make their case - and not the politicians and 'leaders of economy'.
Scientists are - of all the people in the world - the one group who do not stand to gain or lose by their results. Not one dollar either way. If it's anyone in the world you can trust then it's people like that (certainly NOT politicians and 'leaders of economy').
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
"Scientists are - of all the people in the world - the one group who do not stand to gain or lose by their results. Not one dollar either way. If it's anyone in the world you can trust then it's people like that (certainly NOT politicians and 'leaders of economy')."

Antialias do you really expect others to believe that statement? Do you really think that the climate science funding mechanisms have not corrupted it?
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
Funny then how it's the scientists that make their case - and not the politicians and 'leaders of economy'.
Scientists are - of all the people in the world - the one group who do not stand to gain or lose by their results. Not one dollar either way. If it's anyone in the world you can trust then it's people like that (certainly NOT politicians and 'leaders of economy').


Yes, but we already have technology that works, is cheaper than wind and solar, scales better, and has much fewer issues with intermittency...but you don't want to hear about that. That's why the AGW debate is so intractable...because it's always inextricably linked to policy (bad policy usually) and that gets in the way of recognizing the real issue and implementing solutions that work. It's actually not the "deniers" that are the big problem in that debate, it's the believer's inability to let go of their politics and policies.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
MR166 mumbled unscientifically
.. I do believe that our climate abounds with negative feedback loops that keep any of the negative effects of CO2 in check.
Belief ?
Idiocy of arbitrary & uneducated faith !
Evidence please.
Also, it has been proven that the earth's large climate changes caused the levels of CO2 to change not the other way around.
Where is such phase differential claimed ?
There is a big difference between CO2's effect's in some jar in a lab and it's effects in the atmosphere.
NO, remember Integration at high school ?
If so MR166, then what is the mechanism that make it irrelevant or even opposite ?
Nuclear power is a must and that should replace coal not natural gas.
Greatest error of all when MUCH free solar comes continuously, all it takes is a fraction of spent on nuclear to be used for solar, wind, tides etc.

MR166 has a bad memory & utters idiocy re nuclear; Chernobyl, 3 Mile, Sellafield, Fukushima etc

Solar is ideal, maybe Fusion close 2nd !
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
"MR166 mumbled unscientifically

.. I do believe that our climate abounds with negative feedback loops that keep any of the negative effects of CO2 in check.

Belief ?
Idiocy of arbitrary & uneducated faith !
Evidence please."

The very fact that in the past CO2 levels were almost 20 times today's multiple times and that temperatures still returned to "normal" is prima facie evidence of negative feedback loops. Otherwise the so called "tipping point" would have been reached and we would not be here. In fact, today's CO2 levels are at the very low end of the historical scale.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
There ARE scientists who are advocating and have been advocating for nuclear power for decades.
They are attacked by the 'watermelons' and Ehrlich disciples who do NOT want more energy and or growth or prosperity.
re nuclear; Chernobyl, 3 Mile, Sellafield, Fukushima etc

How many millions will die of starvation and cold if they had to depend upon wind and solar?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
ryggesogn2 misread Again
What is 'fast heat'?
U tell me, u made it up
400 ppm => ppm means parts per million.
Yes thats 400 tonnes of CO2 per million tonnes so called normal air.
230,000l/sec, why is that a big deal?
Use your claimed physics degree & do the molar mass & the heat calcs - ok, simple 'back of envelope calc - DO IT ?
How does this compare to a continuously erupting volcano or to geysers at Yellowstone or black smokers on the bottom of the ocean?
Where is there any such outburst that correlates with the relatively smooth CO2 records ?
"Black smokers" not relevant, H2S & CO2 goes into seawater, u imagine there is much, data then ryggesogn2 ?

ryggesogn2, I ask you Again, since u asked me, where is evidence of your physics degree, which university, student number, cv, postal address etc.

Here is mine, http://niche.ii.net/physorg

WHERE ryggesogn2 is yours, caught out lying again are u ryggesogn2 ???
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
Poor uneducated MR166 still doesnt understand timescales
The very fact that in the past CO2 levels were almost 20 times today's multiple times and that temperatures still returned to "normal" is prima facie evidence of negative feedback loops.
And MR166, how long do these feedback loops take to begin, process & decline because we havent seen any sign of them for well over a 100 years ?

Poor MR166 forgets again or just hasnt bothered to get a basic education
Otherwise the so called "tipping point" would have been reached and we would not be here. In fact, today's CO2 levels are at the very low end of the historical scale.
Temp data from ice cores etc is not evidence of heat distribution or overall heat content. We may well have 'been here' *because* of climate change but, you have to ask yourself, hard I know, why you forget the relative timescales.

Why is it MR166, sounds a lot like ryggesogn2, negligible depth of understanding.

CO2 levels have risen VERY fast - get it ??
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2014
There ARE scientists who are advocating and have been advocating for nuclear power for decades.

Because at the time it made sense. There was no alterantive (nuclear WAS the alternative to fossil fuels - which even then people knew were finite). Solar and wind were not doable back then. Today they are. In such a changing landscape it is perfectly possible that what was once the 'best' alternative is now no longer so.

I do believe that our climate abounds with negative feedback loops that keep any of the negative effects of CO2 in check.

You are aware that the number of buffer systems must be finite? And that when we jump from one buffer system/plateau to another that the ecosystem can change radically?
We only need to look to our own solar system to what happens when buffer systems fail. Case in Point: Venus.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
ryggesogn2 there ARE idiots in all professions
There ARE scientists who are advocating and have been advocating for nuclear power for decades.
There ARE also scientists with misunderstanding of our capacity to adapt focusing on solar, wind, tides etc
They are attacked by the 'watermelons' and Ehrlich disciples who do NOT want more energy and or growth or prosperity.
Designs & Innovation sparks prosperity - which future do u prefer ryggesogn2, lots of centralized ineffectively managed nuclear plants within atmospheric closeness to your home OR more people sharing solar, wind, tidal technology and de-centralising power generation world wide with no radiation hazards and reduced atmospheric contaminants such as CO2... ?
re nuclear; Chernobyl, 3 Mile, Sellafield, Fukushima etc
How many millions will die of starvation and cold if they had to depend upon wind and solar? Well they haven't, they relied on coal/gas, see above question - what future do u want ryggesogn2 ?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
"The extremely likely increase in emissions that would follow the closing of
American nuclear plants would mark a tragic reversal of the success we've had in
cutting carbon pollution in recent years. From 2007 to 2013, the United States reduced
carbon emissions in the electricity sector by 18%.6 In 2007, Germany was on the same
path: both countries' carbon emissions started falling. Their paths diverged after the
earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear accident at Fukushima in 2011. While the U.S.
evaluated its nuclear safety and decided, with some adjustments, to stay the course,
Germany immediately shut down 40% of its nuclear power generation.7 German
electric sector emissions jumped 4% from 2011 to 2012. U.S. emissions kept declining."
http://www.thirdw...ions/794
Designs & Innovation sparks prosperity

In a FREE market, yes.
I like the small, sealed nuclear reactors designed by Toshiba or Gen4. New thorium designs look promising.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
Case in Point: Venus.

Venus has no magnetic field and receives more than twice the energy from the sun as the earth.
What's to compare?

Mikey, you wrote this:
"1. Plants change equilibria, cyanide
2. Ocean acidification
3. Fast Heat trapping"

What is 'fast heat'?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
"One of the fundamental differences between Earth and her sister planet Venus is that the Earth has its own magnetic field. Whereas Earth's magnetic field protects us from the sun's charged particles known as the solar wind, Venus lost a similar internally driven magnetic field about a billion years into its history."
http://www.realcl...568.html
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
What is wrong with ryggesogn2
"1. Plants change equilibria, cyanide
2. Ocean acidification
3. Fast Heat trapping"

What is 'fast heat'?
ryggesogn2 Why are u pretending to be an idiot, cant you see your extraction of "Fast Heat" is NOT the same as "fast heat trapping".

Obviously I missed a dash *doh* Fast Heat-trapping.

Get it the rate at which the heat is trapped is fast & obviously faster than previous issues of higher CO2, we are the cause, can't u see & infer.

Where is your claimed university degree in Physics ryggesogn2 ?

Where are your details, u asked for mine, now where are yours ?

So ryggesogn2, you can't infer & waste time with random quotes, where is the core Science ryggesogn2, properties of CO2, the maths ryggesogn2 of 230,000 Litres Petrol/Sec,

Do the 'back of the envelope' calcs, mass of CO2, amount of heat ?

ryggesogn2, who or what r u ?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
Yet another Doctor speaks out.

http://www.forbes...tterfeed

Not "another", just one of the very few.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
Try that again!

Patrick Michaels: https://www.skept...blog.htm

Not "another", just one of the very few left.
seanreynolds
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
If the largest threat to humanity in the next 100 years is Global Warming, then Wind Energy is the wrong approach.

Everything has a purpose, and the purpose of wind is to cool the Earth. As wind travels over anything with water in it, it evaporates water. This process cools the object that water came from. This is how our bodies regulate temperature and this is one way the Earth regulates temperature.

Even if we never fully extract all the kinetic energy out of the wind, the degree to which we can extract energy is the degree we warm the Earth even further.

If we want a carbon neutral energy source then we need to be using more Nuclear. Let's turn the Cold-War era weapons into the energy sources of tomorrow.

If we want a renewable energy source we should invest more in Carbon-Nano-Tube Solar cells for converting the sun's emf directly in to AC Power. We should also consider Geothermal. We know how to generate electricity from temperature differentials.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
Fast Heat-trapping.

Faster than what?
What is 'normal' heat-trapping' or 'slow' heat trapping?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2014
Why is ryggesogn2 pretending to be Thick -and not understanding un-natural fast CO2 emissions with this
What is 'normal' heat-trapping' or 'slow' heat trapping?
ryggesogn2, you still haven't answered my questions.

OBVIOUSLY the natural emissions of CO2 are slow, un-natural emissions are much faster which thus, based on Known thermal properties of CO2, trap the heat more quickly than otherwise.

Why ryggesogn2, can't you relate the context ?

Why ryggesogn2, can u not understand the differential ?

Why ryggesogn2, did you Lie about your university Physics degree ?

Why ryggesogn2, should anyone answer any of your questions ever again ?

Why ryggesogn2, are you going around in circles ?

Why ryggesogn2, do you not accept the basic physics of the properties of water ?

Why ryggesogn2, don't you see the immense effect of "Latent heat of Fusion" ?

Why ryggesogn2, don't you answer MY questions ?

Are you ill ryggesogn2, on medication ryggesogn2 ?

What is with you ryggesogn2 ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2014
""The tightening of reserve margins that is now unavoidable for the next two winters will extend and get deeper, as more power stations will be closing,"
"The probe comes as politicians pressure utilities to keep power prices down — which have risen 120 percent in the last decade. The probe also comes as UK lawmakers debate axing the country's green tax, which is added to consumer energy bills and helps drive up the price."
"Green taxes and environmental opposition have made it difficult for the UK to meet its current energy needs."

Read more: http://dailycalle...xMoiETEJ
the natural emissions of CO2 are slow, un-natural emissions are much faster

CO2 from fossil fuels has different properties than CO2 from 'natural' sources?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2014
So you think that Greenland is warm today eh!

http://c3headline...7970b-pi
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2014
We are most likely only one or two bad winters away from a climate science breakthrough. I am sure that "They" will find that the burning of fossil fuels to keep warm increases snow cover in the northern hemisphere and the albedo effect of the snow will result in a late spring followed by record drought and uncontrolled heat waves. Of course the only way to keep this from happening will be higher taxes, more government controls and wealth redistribution. It goes without saying that an ambitious plan like this can only be administered by a powerful central governing body like the UN.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2014
Wind power costs.....another opinion

http://theenergyc...d-energy
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2014


Yes, but we already have technology that works, is cheaper than wind and solar, scales better, and has much fewer issues with intermittency...but you don't want to hear about that. That's why the AGW debate is so intractable...because it's always inextricably linked to policy (bad policy usually) and that gets in the way of recognizing the real issue and implementing solutions that work. It's actually not the "deniers" that are the big problem in that debate, it's the believer's inability to let go of their politics and policies.


Hahahahahahahahaa!

More MMMaroonity.

Any idiot understands that there are costs for the production and use of any fuel. Without exception, the ACTUAL costs of fossil and nuclear energy production are the highest of any method.

The long-term "external" costs have to be paid for, and simply not entering them on the balance sheet doesn't make them magically go away --however wishful your thinking.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2014
ryggesogn2 seems to have great difficulty focusing, into politics again, what about the Science ryggesogn2
Read more: http://dailycalle...xMoiETEJ
Why can't ryggesogn2, focus on the essential Science ?
ryggesogn2 at it again, dropping clangers with no hypothesis
CO2 from fossil fuels has different properties than CO2 from 'natural' sources?
Other than mild amounts of radiation and fossil fuel emissions MUCH faster and MORE prodigious than any natural sources.

WHAT is your Point ryggesogn2 ?

What are the details ryggesogn2,

Why can't ryggesogn2, ever follow a thought to a conclusion ?

Why is ryggesogn2, focusing on extraneous opinions instead of Science ?

Why does ryggesogn2, come up with one sentence clangers & not follow through the Science ?

What is up with ryggesogn2 ?

Why must he waste all our time ?

Where is your claimed university Physics degree ryggesogn2 ?

Liar...!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2014
There he goes again, Mikey projecting instead of discussing.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2014
AGWism is a religion:
"Torcello reasons, badly, that organized groups or efforts espousing a view on climate change with which he disagrees are committing a crime somewhat akin to murder.:
"Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It's going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people's deaths. It's time to punish the climate-change liars."
"Of course the reason he's so upset is this new fangled thing called the internet has enabled anyone who is curious about the climate debate to actually see both sides of the argument layed out before them. For the alarmists, that has inconveniently helped a majority of people realize that the science behind the alarmism is weak at best and fraudulent in some cases."
"Torcello wants governments to make "the funding of climate denial" a crime."
http://www.breitb...Skeptics
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2014
" "The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public's understanding of scientific consensus.""
http://www.breitb...Skeptics

Such a typical, predictable 'liberal' response, coercion.
And I am sure many who are posting here agree with Torcello.
Lindzen's comparison of AGWism with Eugenics is spot on.

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2014
"Ever wondered how it would feel to be dropped from a helicopter into a swirling mass of crazed, genetically modified oceanic whitetip sharks in the middle of a USS-Indianapolis-style feeding frenzy?

Just ask Nate Silver. He's been living the nightmare all week – ever since he had the temerity to appoint a half-way skeptical scientist as resident climate expert at his "data-driven" journalism site, FiveThirtyEight."
" First, he ought to note that a suspiciously large number of these apparently unbiased commenters appear to work in the environment industry (Nature Conservancy; co-founder at Sustainable Growth Initiative; etc). Secondly, he might have observed that many of them appear to value ThinkProgress (the ravening Soros-funded attack dog of climate alarmism) as a source of unimpeachable authority. Thirdly, none of the criticisms appears remotely to address the facts of Pielke's argument: they're all ad hominems and appeals to authority."
http://www.breitb...nalism/2
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2014
Ryg trying to explain media bias to a group of people that think CNN is right of center is hopeless. To them this bias is a virtue not a problem. After all, to progressives, the end does justify the means .
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2014
What a bizarre display of quote mining and political one-up-manship. Some denialist blogger arguing over the opinions of another blogger! No facts, no science, just a bunch of mined quotes and a politically driven rant by the resident loon!

I tried to warn you all, interacting with a sufferer of Schizotypal Personality Disorder often leads to a stronger episode and a definitive break with reality. It is best to simply let the sufferer vent until the appropriate medicine is administered.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
Ryg trying to explain media bias to a group of people that think CNN is right of center is hopeless. To them this bias is a virtue not a problem. After all, to progressives, the end does justify the means .
And to denialists, any action is too much. Better to pontificate on the perceived conspiracy than acknowledge the robustness of the science.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2014
The job of every real scientist is to try and deny every theory by conducting experiments to falsify the theory.
AGWites make no attempt to falsify their faith in AGWism.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
"And to denialists, any action is too much. Better to pontificate on the perceived conspiracy than acknowledge the robustness of the science."

Let's face it, the only thing robust about climate science is it's funding.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
MR166 along with ryggesogn2 Proves he is an unmitigated Liar and has no science credentials and very likely has never had the pleasure of an education beyond the age of 15 with this rubbish
Let's face it, the only thing robust about climate science is it's funding.
Idiocy, such as:-

1. Thermal properties of CO2
2. Rise of CO2
3. Property of H2O, "Latent Heat of Fusion"
4. Reduction in glacial mass
5. Decreased ocean salinity

All hard core evidentiary Science, yet MR166 & ryggesogn2 & maybe one other who is on the edge, must have low IQs as they just CANNOT put these facts together.

What is *not* robust about any of the above, all are experimentally proven, its very easy to do the experiments well (cough), if you ever bothered to get an education, university helps but, hey with a fair IQ u can construct experiments of robust nature (long with math ryggesogn2) & observe.

Question.
What property of CO2 when ADDED to atmosphere forces cooling or have no effect on heat flow ?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
More proof of the governments insatiable drive to make food and energy so expensive that the average person has to be subsidized.

http://yidwithlid...ate.html
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
ryggesogn2 suggested
The job of every real scientist is to try and deny every theory by conducting experiments to falsify the theory.
Are you claiming this has never happened in the last 100 years or so & especially in respect of Thermal properties of CO2 & Water - the key foundation for climate change ?

ryggesogn2 further mumbled
AGWites make no attempt to falsify their faith in AGWism.
Why falsify a faith when its not a belief. Its the balance of probabilities KNOWING the properties of the gasses within the atmosphere, the source(s) of heat etc.

WHy CAN'T you ryggesogn2 put that together & from your claimed university degree in Physics as well ?

Check my student ID with Curtin University did you ?

You asked mine ryggesogn2 and I showed you.

Where are yours ryggesogn2 ?

Ever heard of the old Greek golden rule "..do unto others.."

Liar ryggesogn2, pants on Fire !

Instead of political propaganda which all good scientists hate, why not focus on the Science,

Too hard ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
its very easy to do the experiments well

Do you have a super computer to run the experiments?
AGW experiments are the temporal results of the GCMs.
Only the high priests of AGWism can run the GCMs.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
ryggesogn2 STill doesnt get it with this tangent
Do you have a super computer to run the experiments?
AGW experiments are the temporal results of the GCMs.
Only the high priests of AGWism can run the GCMs.
You don't need a Supercomputer to run simple experiments.

Didn't you learn that in your claimed University degree in Physics ryggesogn2 ?

Liar ryggesogn2 Liar - caught you AGAIN & AGAIN, wakey wakey ?

ie. Arrange a chamber with multiple gases, vary the mix, run permutations, vary the multiple heat sources, run more permutations....

Experimental Methods 101 - first year Uni ryggesogn2 ?

You ryggesogn2 STILL haven't understood Science !!!!

Why ryggesogn2 can't you understand AND answer a simple Question.

What property of CO2 when ADDED to atmosphere forces cooling or have no effect on heat flow ?

Hear of Integration ryggesogn2, its part of Calculus ?

Understand meek ryggesogn2 ?

Got an education yet ryggesogn2 ?

Who r u ryggesogn2 ?

Started Community college yet ?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
"2. Rise of CO2
3. Property of H2O, "Latent Heat of Fusion"
4. Reduction in glacial mass
5. Decreased ocean salinity"

Get real Mike!

2 thru 5 are all part of natural cycles.

Did mankind's activities raise the temperatures by a few tenths of a degree, quite possibly. Until it can be proven that there are long term problems with this, the benefits of fossil fuels far outweigh the costs.

This is a classic cost benefit ratio problem. If drinking water with arsenic levels of 10 PPB costs 1 cent per gallon does it pay to raise the standard to 7 PPB if water will then cost 5 cents per gallon. Mike how much AGW is acceptable to maintain our standard of living?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2014
AGW is NOT a simple experiment which is quite apparent when the 'experts' can't (because it is impossible) create a first principle model of the climate to demonstrate affects of any changes, let alone CO2.
Instead they must use coarse empirical observations over the span of a decade or two and 'adjust' the model to predict 'disaster' in 100 years.
Soon after the "Limits of Growth" predicted disaster the "Models of Doom" was very critical of the results of such a crude model.
AGW is an extension of Ehrlich disciples attempts to make humans extinct. Too bad they are the first to volunteer.
At least the Shakers had the courage of their conviction. Can't say the same for the AGWites.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2014
Ryggy said
AGWism is a religion:
lets look at that a moment:
global warming scientists make up their mind using empirical data, observation, scientific methods...
the anti-global warming makes up its mind because they dont believe in global warming

The scientists research and learn, trying o understand the extremely complex system while attempting to be as accurate as possible using science and empirical data...
the anti-gobal warming deny the science and empirical data because it doesn't jibe with their belief or there MUST be a conspiracy

scientists have all performed individual studies that have combined to paint a really accurate picture that points in one direction...Anti's don't believe it because...WHY?

it appears that the anti-warming crown are the ones pushing religion here, NOT the scientists.

When your belief is based upon the words of a BLOG, it doesn't proven facts, or because it always has been... and you ignore EMPIRICAL DATA- then you have a RELIGION (anti's!)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
it appears that the anti-warming crown are the ones pushing religion here, NOT the scientists.

Not ALL scientists follow the AGW faith and those who won't, and practice real science are viciously attacked.
Sounds like a religious cult.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
Why is Joe afraid?
"Joe Biden: 'We Could Lose' Congress to More Candidates Like Ted Cruz"
http://www.breitb...Ted-Cruz
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2014
The job of every real scientist is to try and deny every theory by conducting experiments to falsify the theory

Scientists try not to be biased. They test theories with an open mind (open mindedness is pretty much the prerequisite for being able to do the job). When they test they try not to anticipate outcome for or against a theory - because that would bias the interpretation of the results.

You seem to confuse falsification with 'needing to prove something wrong'. Falsification is the ABILITY to test something in a way that the result MIGHT read "wrong".

If the test turns out to strenghten the hypothesis then that is also a valid outcome. Just like with any outcome that puts a theory in doubt it MUST NOT be dismissed, as it constitutes valid data. This is why confidence has steadily increased in the results of climate science: because they keep testing using different approaches and keep coming to the same results over and over.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
confidence has steadily increased

While the models that predict future climate are failing?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
@mR166 & ryggesogn2 please answer my question
What property of CO2 when ADDED to atmosphere forces cooling or has no effect on heat flow ?
& especially so of ryggesogn2 who claims/Lies re a University degree in Physics from some unknown place he refuses to prove.

@MR166 re my 5 items:-
1. Thermal properties of CO2
Are you claiming these are wrong - evidence ?

2. Rise of CO2
You claiming consistent rise with industrial productions is natural ?

3. Property of H2O, "Latent Heat of Fusion"
You claiming this well Known property cannot reduce local temperatures as ice melts ?

4. Reduction in glacial mass
You claiming rapid change is natural, how so ?

5. Decreased ocean salinity
You claiming rapid change unrelated to ice melting & is natural, how so ?

@ryggesogn2 & his SIMPLE view of models
While the models that predict future climate are failing?
How is it that with a University degree in Physics you (STILL) don't understand probability & Asymptotes

Physics ryggesogn2 !
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
Scientists try not to be biased.

Not AGWite scientists.
I met one, James Anderson from Harvard. He was a wild eyed AGWite.
And then we have Ehrlich and Mann.
There likely are many who try to be unbiased, not those of the AGW denomination.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2014
Not AGWite scientists.

Why do you assume that climate scientists are different from other scientists? (BTW, there is no such thing as an AGW scientists. They are climate scientists)

While the models that predict future climate are failing?

They are not failing. They predict warming to various degrees. We're talking minor differences here in shades of gray (quantitative differences - not qualitative differences).

I met one, James Anderson from Harvard. He was a wild eyed AGWite.
And then we have Ehrlich and Mann.

Maybe they just see the necessity to not just publish results but that action must follow these results - or we're all in deep trouble. Be glad that there are people out there who want to save your ignorant behind.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
So ryggesogn2 is claiming from isolated, narrow, limited experience as a Liar who claims he has a University degree in Physics
There likely are many who try to be unbiased, not those of the AGW denomination.


What happens ryggesogn2, when you come across a Scientist who accepts the proof of:-

1. CO2 levels rising correlated AND mapped to industrial output
2. CO2 has Known thermal properties
3. Properties of water Eg. ice melting absorbs MASSIVE amount of Heat

AND

Accepts there is no evidence at all ADDING CO2 to the atmosphere has any sort of cooling effect despite the desire it might.

Comes to LOGICAL & Clear conclusion, without being influenced by any propaganda BECAUSE Scientists have been trained in laboratories & KNOW experimental methods,

Arrive at warming (of atmosphere & Oceans) beyond that of Insolation is primarily due to human activities.

Why is it so HARD for ryggesogn2/MR166 to understand ?

Answer to my previous question ryggesogn2 too ?

Physics ryggesogn2 ?
lightandmatter
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
Regarding ryggesogn2 comment about future climate models failing .

I am new to this blog and I am always keen to here both sides of the issue of AGW change

My only political view is I only want to understand what the climate future will be like for my grandchildren, and my great grandchildren!

I live on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.

There are predictions that the oceans will rise, warm and acidify due to co2, resulting in destruction of the reef on my doorstep, I believe these changes have already started through research and monitoring from the local university, I have personally seen the rising oceans wash waves down our street with king tides and storm surges. I have seen part of our road washed into the ocean due to more severe weather in recent times. The predictions say we will expect fewer cyclones but those that strike will be more severe due to global warming resulting in more damage.

Can ryggezogn2 assure me this is not even partly due to global warming from co2
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
"Can ryggezogn2 assure me this is not even partly due to global warming from co2"

So let's assume for arguments sake that man has played a small part in climate change and that a carbon tax could help limit this change.

How many people should be driven into poverty, starvation and government programs in order to limit the change by 1/10 of a degree? How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice for this? How much freedom should be lost to the giant world bureaucracy that any meaningful carbon mitigation scheme would create?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
it appears that the anti-warming crown are the ones pushing religion here, NOT the scientists.

"
James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion

Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures"
""The government is too frightened to use nuclear, renewables won't work –because we don't have enough sun – and we can't go on burning coal because it produces so much CO2, so that leaves fracking. It produces only a fraction of the amount of CO2 that coal does, and will make Britain secure in energy for quite a few years. We don't have much choice," he said."
http://www.thegua...religion
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
Sounds like a religious cult
@Rygg
lets see... scientists accept that if a theory fails or does not comply to observation, there needs to be a change... scientists understand that the theory MUST reliably be able to predict the future based upon sound principles/physics, and they adjust as needed

now the opposite: lightandmatter poses a legitimate question to the anti crowd and gets a PERSONAL attack with mr166 griping
How many people should be driven into poverty, starvation and government programs in order to blah blah blah
as though it is light's personal responsibility...

Sounds like the ANTI's are running the cult, not the SCIENTISTS.

I cant speak for anyone else but when EMPIRICAL data stares me in the face and it contradicts what i "believe" then I adjust my personal beliefs, NOT the other way around, as proven on these warming threads. the ANTI group ignores empirical data and believes regardless of the data!

anti warming= CULT of stupidity (not ignorance)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
EMPIRICAL data stares me in the face and it contradicts what i "believe" then I adjust my personal beliefs,

Climate models have failed for 15 years.
When will you change?
The climate has been warming for over 10,000 years. Why panic now?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
So let's assume for arguments sake
@mr166
why are you so focused on just ONE tiny part of the equation... perhaps you MAY have some issue with carbon tax... ok, WE GET IT!
what about all the other data supporting global warming?
WHAT ABOUT ALL THAT EMPIRICAL DATA THAT PRETTY MUCH SAYS THAT IF WE CONTINUE THE WAY WE ARE RIGHT NOW WE WILL SCREW UP THE ENVIRONMENT AND MOST LIKELY WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPAIR IT!
I put that in caps so that you will think about it. FORGET about focusing on the carbon tax... what about all the rest of the data you are IGNORING... or at least you SEEM to be ignoring...

THIS is why people assume log-in's like Rygg and mr166 are corporate shills trying to undermine the reality of the science behind the articles. neither have YET to produce ANY EMPIRICAL DATA refuting the science behind the global warming issue, and they always end up personally attacking/political/conspiracy mode.

fighting logic/science with politics/stupidity? it just doesn't work!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
science behind the global warming i

There is no 'science'.
Only correlation and flawed computer models of climate.
The rest is the result of socialist greens like Ehrlich and hucksters like Gore who push their socialist policies.
If real scientists were really worried they would be promoting solutions like nuclear power instead of destroying the world's economies with taxes. Few are doing so.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
EMPIRICAL data stares me in the face and it contradicts what i "believe" then I adjust my personal beliefs,

Climate models have failed for 15 years.
When will you change?

climate models have not failed
the data is still correct, but when you have a complex system with factors that are unpredictable or chaotic, the longer out your predictions, the less likely the accuracy. Just like weather ... around here, the NOAA weather is SPOT ON for three days out... then it degrades over the next few days. If I turn it on and listen, I only listen to the next three days...

EMPIRICAL DATA shows warming. you ignore it
EMPIRICAL DATA shows that we are getting worse. you ignore it
it is a trend with yall...
I don't care about yall's politics or beliefs, ONLY IN THE SCIENCE

you have NEVER produced ANY science refuting the warming! NOT ONE PIECE! & a pause or fluctuation is exactly that, nothing more. until there is MORE data, I wait!
that is why trends tend to be 30yrs & not 10/15
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
There is no 'science'.
Only correlation and flawed computer models of climate
@rygg
given this last statement of incredible stupidity, this only proves that you are boght and paid for.
given this last post, it only proves that you are most likely unable to comprehend studies/papers/publications and therefore are a TROLL

Thanks for pointing that out once again

your inability to produce empirical data supporting your arguments means that you are TROLLING and have nothing of merit to produce/add to a climate discussion... perhaps only to a political rant/discussion.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
the less likely the accuracy.

That's failure.
Explain the empirical data of Vikings farming Greenland and warming during the Roman era and the Little Ice Age and ....
'Un-biased' 'scientists' tried to cover up this empirical data.

As for complex and chaotic systems, after 40 years of claiming fat is bad for people to eat, NOW it's not bad.
Study why these 'unbiased' scientists went down a rabbit hole and you will see why AGWites are doing the same thing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
"The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man."
"Do we try to mitigate, at huge cost, or do we merely adapt to natural changes -- as our ancestors did for many millennia?

Such tipping points occur quite frequently in science. I have personally witnessed two paradigm shifts where world scientific opinion changed rapidly -- almost overnight. One was in Cosmology, where the "Steady State" theory of the Universe was replaced by the "Big Bang." This shift was confirmed by the discovery of the "microwave background radiation," which has already garnered Nobel prizes, and will likely get more. "

The other major shift occurred in Continental Drift. "
"These shifts were possible because there were no commercial or financial interests -- and they did not involve the public and politicians. "
http://americanth...ft_on_cl
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
For Maggy:
"But now, for the first time, we have NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) as a counter to the IPCC, as an independent voice, a second opinion, if you will -- something that was advocated by the IAC (InterAcademy Council on Science). We now have a credible number of studies, which the IPCC chose to ignore in reaching their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The NIPCC reports were also published in September 2013 (Physical Science), and in March and April of 2014 (Biological Impacts and Societal Impacts)."
"http://www.nipccr...a2.html"
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
ryggesogn2 STILL can't understand
There is no 'science'.
For you ryggesogn2, you cannot understand the foundations in Physics Esp re Heat !
Only correlation and flawed computer models of climate.
Correlations are good, show relative metrics ryggesogn2, upper & lower bounds ?
The rest is the result of socialist greens like Ehrlich and hucksters like Gore who push their socialist policies.
Politics, yet again ryggesogn2 Cannot address Science, shifts to politics, arbitrary opinions.
If real scientists were really worried they would be promoting solutions like nuclear power instead of destroying the world's economies with taxes..
Real Scientists ryggesogn2, deal with evidence not economic opinion predicated upon political will bought by lobbyists for the nuclear industry. Scientists don't propose taxes.

Why ryggesogn2 r u so easily showing you CANNOT deal with Science ?

Why ryggesogn2 r u showing political bias at the drop of a hat ?

ryggesogn2 no answers to my Q ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
Scientists don't propose taxes.

"Dr. James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the nation's and perhaps the world's pre-eminent climate scientist, has been a forceful advocate of a U.S. revenue-neutral carbon tax since at least 2006."
"Stephen Chu, director, Univ. of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.""
"Steven Running, University of Montana Professor of Ecology: "The first thing we need to do – and it's highly unpopular – we really need to put a carbon tax "
http://www.carbon...nomists/
Correlations are good,

"That is, the rates of violent crime and murder have been known to jump when ice cream sales do."
"If red just came up seven times in a row on the roulette wheel, would you be more likely to bet on red or black before that eighth turn?"
http://science.ho...-correla
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
Any idiot understands that there are costs for the production and use of any fuel. Without exception, the ACTUAL costs of fossil and nuclear energy production are the highest of any method.


Nuclear fuel is ridiculously cheap. I have no clue what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. I can tell you FOR SURE that the capacity and intermittency problems are wildly underestimated in the above article.

The long-term "external" costs have to be paid for, and simply not entering them on the balance sheet doesn't make them magically go away --however wishful your thinking.


No one knows what those costs are, it's an estimate. The worst external costs are tanking our economy to avert what has amounted to very little warming. I don't dispute that the warming is happening. I dispute how much, for how long, and how to best address it. If that makes me "and idiot" for disagreeing with you then I guess I couldn't get higher praise considering the source.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
For Rygg:

"Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists. Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
weaknesses in the science behind global warming."

The weakness is in the cause and is VERY weak on predictions.
As I have said many times, the climate has been warming for the past 10,000 years, fortunately, for those regions formerly covered by glaciers.
Would AGWites be whining about melting glaciers had they lived 10,000 years ago? I think so.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
Maggnus the term "anthropogenic climate change" says all we need t know about the quackery involved. It used to be AGW but the northern hemisphere started to have no warming with cold winters and the "science" had to change it's terms in order to stay relevant and keep it's funding without the sheep complaining. Hot water started to become heaver than cold water so that it could sink to places where it could not be measured and the hoax could continue.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2014

ryggsuckin' invokes the NIPCC:

http://www.nipccr...out.html Neat-o website design!

An entirely industry-funded, BigCarbon shill-tank of antiscience apologetics, trumpery, chicanery and hogwash.

Go suck the NIPCC up the mangy-hole, ryggsuckn'.

Oh, wait --you already have.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
AGWites in true socialist style, attack instead of discuss because they cannot tolerate an open debate.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014

Nuclear fuel is ridiculously cheap. I have no clue what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. I can tell you FOR SURE that the capacity and intermittency problems are wildly underestimated in the above article.
[...]
No one knows what those costs are, it's an estimate. The worst external costs are tanking our economy to avert what has amounted to very little warming. I don't dispute that the warming is happening. I dispute how much, for how long, and how to best address it. If that makes me "and idiot" for disagreeing with you then I guess I couldn't get higher praise considering the so..


I note that you've "cleverly" narrowed the definition of Cost in the first instance to cost of the fuel itself, while expanding the same in the second instance for the mitigation of AGW

IOW, you ain't got nothing.

Run for the hills maroon.

Perhaps you would care to quantify the cost of massive disruption of, or possibly partial/total collapse of civilization and ecosphere.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
AGW 'tolerance':
"Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It's going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people's deaths. It's time to punish the climate-change liars."
http://gawker.com...53719888

All those scientists who advocated a low fat diet should now be arrested as low-fat diets have not been proven to cause heart disease.

We all look forward to having Mann deposed in a court of law.

http://www.steyno...ble-mann
lightandmatter
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
Australia has a carbon 'tax' , the opposition at the time said the economy was going to collapse, everybody was going to be out of work, etc etc but the increase service costs on the power bills at that time were higher than what the carbon tax component was. The economy continued as usual despite the global recession at the time. The current govt is in the process of repealing the carbon tax like it is some victory when it will only save a few dollars on the power bill for the average user.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2014
The current govt is in the process of repealing the carbon tax like it is some victory when it will only save a few dollars on the power bill for the average user.


Instead of the govt spending your money, you can.
If it was no big deal then why bother with the bureaucratic expense of keeping the tax?
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
I note that you've "cleverly" narrowed the definition of Cost in the first instance to cost of the fuel itself, while expanding the same in the second instance for the mitigation of AGW


What about the 14 trillion it would cost to go completely wind powered (even more if you mix in solar). Where are those costs?

If you want the math on that look up how much it costs to install wind or solar (it's a million or more per megawatt), then look at the current installed capacity in megawatts for the US, THEN take that number times two for the intermittency problem and you have a good conservative estimate for the REAL cost of wind power. Not to mention how much the price is going to skyrocket as you run out of rare Earth metals building them and the environmental costs to Chinese strip mining to get them to market.

But you don't care about that. Facts, figures, meh...you just want wind power no matter the cost. Fine YOU pay for it. Don't expect the rest of us to swallow it.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
"Perhaps you would care to quantify the cost of massive disruption of, or possibly partial/total collapse of civilization and ecosphere."

The earth could also be destroyed by an asteroid, perhaps we should spend a few trillion to defend against that. What about volcanoes? We could spend trillions building massive underground cities.

Science has PROVEN absolutely nothing about the future climate and man's influence on it. You cannot justify massive changes to our standard of living and freedoms on nothing more than pure speculation.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2014
The earth could also be destroyed by an asteroid, perhaps we should spend a few trillion to defend against that. What about volcanoes? We could spend trillions building massive underground cities.
We are already spending millions to try and address the asteroid problems. The possibility of super-volcanoes is being addressed and steps are being taken to try and understand what threat they may pose. Neither of these is a possible threat in the foreseeable future. A strawman argument.

Science has PROVEN absolutely nothing about the future climate and man's influence on it. You cannot justify massive changes to our standard of living and freedoms on nothing more than pure speculation.
So lets sit and do nothing then? That's your plan?

Can you even hear yourself?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
"So lets sit and do nothing then? That's your plan?"

As far as CO2 goes exactly. We need to treat oil and gas as a resource that is about to run out. They are unique fuels and vital to everything that we use in daily life. Replacing coal with nat gas is ludicrous. Does burning coal take a year off the average persons life? It might, but running out of nat gas take 5 years off. If we run out of oil we all starve. I really hope that we can develop energy effective renewables and nuclear in time to save ourselves.

CO2 mitigation is just distraction from the work and research that we really need to be doing right now! That money needs to be spent on other research.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2014
We are already spending millions to try and address the asteroid problems.

Who is?
They don't have a system in place to do anything.
Maybe they need to divert all AGW funding as asteroids are a more imminent threat.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2014
We are already spending millions to try and address the asteroid problems.

Who is?
They don't have a system in place to do anything.
Maybe they need to divert all AGW funding as asteroids are a more imminent threat.


More stupidiotic, willful disunderstanding.

Your unbalanced self perceives a threat to your wannabe laissez faire lifestyle while ignoring the actual, growing threat to every living thing on the face of this planet.

Including even such a pathetic, contemptible thing as you.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2014
Why don't you answer the question about asteroid defense?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2014
Why don't you answer the question about asteroid defense?
Because its a stupid question intended only to beg an answer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
Asteroids have impacted the earth many times and have caused significant catastrophic events.
The technology now exists to develop a system that could provide a defense.
However, AGWites, who claim to be worried about catastrophic events care not for doing anything about asteroids.
This reinforces the evidence AGWites are more interested in power and control over people, socialism, and, like other socialists, play up some disaster only they can solve IF they had the power.
And their shrill responses also reinforce this irrational desire for power.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2014
Why don't you answer the question about asteroid defense?
@rygg
maybe because you are picking a straw-man fight which has no relation to the topic of the article above?... search phys.org alone and you get more than 4 pages of articles on "asteroid defense" starting in Feb 21, 2007 till march 2014, and there have been NUMEROUS articles here on phys.org talking about different methodologies being considered from capture to redirection, etc...

so it means that instead of getting into a stupid argument that shows only that you are unable to look up the simple stuff yourself Maggnus chose to walk the high road and ignore your TROLLING????

I mean, really, Rygg... quit being an idiot! even if you DONT use Google, any OTHER browser will give you at LEAST this link: http://www.npr.or...nse-plan

Google gives
About 11,400,000 results (0.26 seconds)
so QUIT TROLLING
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2014
However, AGWites, who claim to be worried about catastrophic events care not for doing anything about asteroids.
This reinforces the evidence AGWites are more interested in power and control over people, socialism, and, like other socialists, play up some disaster only they can solve IF they had the power.
And their shrill responses also reinforce this irrational desire for power
@Rygg
your idiotic personal conjecture is completely destroyed with the last post I made... I mean, really!
YOU ASSUME that people who understand science and see the empirical data supporting global warming don't want to protect the earth? really?
this is complete conjecture, and an argument from pure stupidity. thanks for sharing and TROLLING... c'mon, you are smarter than that.

now... how does this all relate to Global Warming... BESIDES through your conspiratorial views that are likely paid for by the corporate sponsors like Koch or big oil????

MR166
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
"now... how does this all relate to Global Warming... BESIDES through your conspiratorial views that are likely paid for by the corporate sponsors like Koch or big oil????"

If you think that Koch and "Big Oil" are the biggest threat to our freedoms and prosperity either you are very ignorant or you think that freedom and individual prosperity are not important.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
Koch's are a threat to socialists everywhere.
Which is why they are being attacked by dirty Harry and the AGWites.
hat people who understand science and see the empirical data supporting global warming don't want to protect the earth?


As a minimum they don't understand how to prioritize threats.
Asteroids are a more significant threat, AND has straightforward mitigation. But AGWites can't acquire power promoting asteroid defense.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2014
Koch's are a threat to socialists everywhere.


Alas, ryggsuckn', et al, are too blinded by their wannabe laissez faire LibertaRandite avarice to realize that the Koch Bros --a shining example of the slavering, parasitic greed which ryggsuckn, et al slavishly emulate-- are a threat to every living thing upon the face of this planet, including, ultimately, themselves.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
The socialists will now start really screaming:
"The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that wealthy donors shouldn't be limited in how many candidates they can contribute to during an election, though the justices did leave in place the maximum donation that can be made to a single candidate.

Read more: http://www.washin...xhvrQW9G
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
The first graph really puts everything in perspective.

http://hockeyscht...age.html
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
If you think that Koch and "Big Oil" are the biggest threat to our freedoms and prosperity either you are very ignorant or you think that freedom and individual prosperity are not important
mr166
1-my argument was about global warming and Rygg's stupidity
2- the GREATEST threat to our "freedoms and prosperity" are IDIOTS
PERIOD
when PEOPLE like above get together and SPAM science, denunciate empirical data, and cherry pick to support an argument in order to obfuscate the issue "just because" or because they get paid to do it... THAT is the threat. not the science, bubba

try using empirical data to argue your point and NOT BLOGS etc... oh WAIT! there isn't any... imagine that! (unless you cherry pick or plain LIE like some others)

until blatant overwhelming STUPIDITY is made to be a NEGATIVE (again) in society, then people like the above will continue to have way too much say in democracies like the US

THAT is the real threat, mr166. NOT SCIENCE. NOT EMPIRICAL DATA
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
freedoms and prosperity either you are very ignorant or you think that freedom and individual prosperity are not important.

oh yeah... one last think, pinky
I know FAR MORE about liberties, freedoms and what it means to lose them than most other people do. I am FAR from ignorant of this issue, but screaming impotently on a science site gets NOTHING accomplished, especially when your interpretation is NOT validated with any real evidence.
I usually don't get political in here... but today I will say this: it is IDIOTS like yall's comments above that drive people away from trying to be an active participant in the democratic process. You think it is EITHER one way or the OTHER...and yall call names and attack ANY view that is not your own.(more idiocy)

want to make a difference? PROVE SOMETHING! stop whining here and get empirical data to support your claims
you THINK there is no warming. PROVE IT. the empirical data against you is overwhelming... but try... stop whining!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
Charles Koch:

"A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism."
"Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. "
{Sounds like Stumpy and other here.}
http://online.wsj..._opinion
This is why the socialist fear, loath and attack two of the Koch brothers.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2014
Charles Koch:
"Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. "
"Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers"
"America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. "
http://online.wsj...p;mg=ren
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2014
Ryg arguing with a progressive or socialist about crony capitalism is useless. Their whole system is based on crony capitalism. If you really want to know what they are secretly doing just listen to what they accuse others of doing. Why is congress exempt from the stockmarkets insider trading rules? The ruling class is the real problem here.

In fact the whole AGW fiasco is based on crony capitalism at it's highest levels.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
This thread is a perfect example of using science or ignoring science to uphold worldview first.

Environmentalists values about the environment serve their POLITICS, their politics are NOT about helping the environment. To them AGW is a means to a political end, not a problem grave importance to be solved. Don't confuse them with facts.

Denialists values are about the economy, everything else be damned. Everything about their politics is about creating a more efficient economic system, human life and the biosphere is a means to that end period.

These "discussions" (it's an insult to the concept of a discussion to call it that) are never about the real issues. They're about people's value sets, ego (in the sense of identity), and politics. The environment is no where in sight. Which is why it's totally unsurprising that NO significant progress has been made toward that end.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2014
Everything about their politics is about creating a more efficient economic system,

A more efficient, and prosperous economic system IS better for the environment.

Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
Everything about their politics is about creating a more efficient economic system,

A more efficient, and prosperous economic system IS better for the environment.



Define "better for the environment". I'm willing to bet you that twenty people have twenty different definitions about it. The environment and all discussions about it are ultimately about what YOU value or don't value about it.

Now I happen to agree that you have to be fantastically rich to even ask questions about which animals we save, or which habitats we keep "pristine" (whatever the hell that means). You have to have an extremely well developed economy before you can even consider what environmentalism or an environmentalist is. Just ask the Africans if they'd rather feed their starving kid or kill an Elephant for a tusk....

The two issues (values about the environment/the capacity to do something about the environment) are separate however.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
habitats we keep "pristine"

The only way to do that is vacate the planet and let nature decide.
Preservation is impossible, but conservation is not.

The two issues (values about the environment/the capacity to do something about the environment) are separate however.


No, they are not.
Without the capacity to act upon the value, the value is just a dream.
Having the capacity to vacate the planet could enable the value of preservation, or at least letting nature take its course, or having the capacity of knowledge and capital, environments can be actively conserved.
What to conserve is a value judgement, of course.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014

The only way to do that is vacate the planet and let nature decide.
Preservation is impossible, but conservation is not.


Agreed, which is why I added the qualifier "whatever the hell that means". Which just typifies why environmentalists are ALWAYS talking about their own personal values and never "the environment". Nature, in fact, doesn't "decide" anything. It holds no values, is not conscious, and can't hold concepts and question their relative value. Only humans do that.

Without the capacity to act upon the value, the value is just a dream.


So a dream (value) is the same as the ability to realize it? They AREN'T separate things? This means that there is no difference between the concept of going to the moon and an Atlas V rocket.

Having a dream is often the motivation for realizing it, but it is not the realization.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2014

Now I happen to agree that you have to be fantastically rich to even ask questions about which animals we save, or which habitats we keep "pristine" (whatever the hell that means). You have to have an extremely well developed economy before you can even consider what environmentalism or an environmentalist is. Just ask the Africans if they'd rather feed their starving kid or kill an Elephant for a tusk....

The two issues (values about the environment/the capacity to do something about the environment) are separate however.


Which is, as always, ass-backwards, self-justifying, circular,NeoCon LibertaRandite, willful disunderstanding --and not reasoning at all.

Egalitarian, hunter-gatherer and herder societies live sustainably within their local environment's carrying capacity, or they perish.

The Africans --your example-- could still provide for their starving families if it weren't for the disruption foisted upon them by economic exploitation the last couple hundred years.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
"The Africans --your example-- could still provide for their starving families if it weren't for the disruption foisted upon them by economic exploitation the last couple hundred years."

Are you trying to say that they are suffering from a corrupt government?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
"The Africans --your example-- could still provide for their starving families if it weren't for the disruption foisted upon them by economic exploitation the last couple hundred years."

Are you trying to say that they are suffering from a corrupt government?


Or the banning of the slave trade by UK and its enforcement by the Royal Navy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
Egalitarian, hunter-gatherer and herder societies live sustainably within their local environment's carrying capacity, or they perish.


Fortunately people applied their intelligence to use nature more efficiently to increase their numbers by increasing the 'carrying capacity'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
Billionaires spending millions is acceptable if they are socialist billionaires.
"Billionaire philanthropist George Soros hopes the U.S. goes to pot, and he is using his money to drive it there.

With a cadre of like-minded, wealthy donors, Mr. Soros is dominating the pro-legalization side of the marijuana debate by funding grass-roots initiatives that begin in New York City and end up affecting local politics elsewhere.
"Mr. Soros' Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects,"
"David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million"

Read more: http://www.washin...xsAbxVhq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
Soros, Gates and Buffet are all progressive heroes. They are never mentioned by the MSM when political donors are mentioned. Of course, mentioning the biggest socialist donors of all, the unions is verboten.

Unless the sheeple get very enlightened very quickly this nation is doomed and the progressive socialist communists have succeeded in implementing their plan from the 50s!!!
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
the ryggsuckn' mangyhole spouts!

Billionaires spending millions is acceptable if they are socialist billionaires.
"Billionaire philanthropist George Soros hopes the U.S. goes to pot, and he is using his money to drive it there.

With a cadre of like-minded, wealthy donors, Mr. Soros is dominating the pro-legalization side of the marijuana debate by funding grass-roots initiatives that begin in New York City and end up affecting local politics elsewhere.
"Mr. Soros' Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects,"
"David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million"

Read more: http://www.washin...xsAbxVhq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


...more tainted troll effluvia, and most definitely not to be confused with factual accuracy.

.
hangman04
not rated yet Apr 04, 2014
really like it how the comments sidetracked :))
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2014
Notice how Cali can't form a rational response?
The truth really sends the AGWites head spinning.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2014
"The scientists themselves -- some of them, at least -- are partly to blame. They chose to become political advocates, no doubt out of a sincere belief that policies needed to change a lot and at once. But scientist-advocates can't expect to be seen as objective or disinterested. Once they're suspected of spinning the science or opining on questions outside their area of expertise, as political advocacy is bound to require, they lose authority. And it doesn't help when scientists who express such reservations are cast out of the mainstream. You expect "you're either with us or against us" from politicians, but not from scientists."
http://www.bloomb...one-else
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2014
The truth really sends the AGWites head spinning.
what truth are you referring to? your perceived truth?
personally, I dont really care one whit about the politics
I hate all politics
the TRUTH is simple
there is EMPIRICAL DATA supporting warming
there is EMPIRICAL DATA supporting human activity affected it

this is the issue for me. nothing else

as for your "claim" above... my head is shaking, not spinning. you have offered ZERO supporting evidence against warming

the ONLY thing offered above (by deniers) so far is that:
you perceive some global conspiracy
you dont believe and you have NO evidence supporting your lack of belief in warming
you assume some jerks quote is evidence of something OTHER than the fact that he said something (its not)
you cannot differentiate between reality and your delusions/beliefs

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2014
"Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. "
{Sounds like Stumpy and other here.}
here is where we differ, Rygg...
I am VERY OPEN to new ideas... but it is conditional. whereas you only require someone to say something... I REQUIRE EMPIRICAL DATA
that is important
there is NO debate between you and I simply because YOU HAVE NEVER OFFERED ANY EMPIRICAL DATA SUPORTING THE POSITION THAT THERE IS NO WARMING
the only thing you ever offer is your BELIEF and you support it with accusations that I am a socialist, or that I believe a certain way, or you continually post bullshite about political this-or-that...
it is irrelevant to me
I am NOT ONLY APATHETIC
I REALLY DONT CARE
(please write that down... I dont care about your/any other politics... really! it is a BELIEF, and that is personal... so it is irrelevant to me)
I deal with empirical data
you bring me empirical data, we'll talk
until then you are a political TROLL
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2014
there is EMPIRICAL DATA supporting human activity affected it

Except when humans did NOT affect the climate thousands of years ago.
Which is why Mann had to hide MWP and the little ice age.
lack of belief in warming


There is much data supporting a warming climate for the past 10,000+ years. The only belief required is to blame humans for any cause.
Until Stump and the other AGWites can identify the causes of ALL climate changes for the past millions of years, AGW is a belief system, not science.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2014
So the climate models predict that the dry areas will get dryer and the wet areas will get wetter. These are the same models that once predicted that snow is a thing of the past and that now are predicting more snow. The same that predicted more hurricanes. The same that predicted massive melting of both ice caps.

If climate models were a car they would be a 1975 Pinto that is held together by duct tape and bailing wire. As the old parts fall off new ones are taped and glued back on and the result is called a new and improved model.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2014
Sorry wrong thread!
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
MR166 Claims - with ZERO references:-
So the climate models predict that the dry areas will get dryer and the wet areas will get wetter. These are the same models that once predicted that snow is a thing of the past and that now are predicting more snow. The same that predicted more hurricanes. The same that predicted massive melting of both ice caps.
Prove MR166 your ambit puerile claim model claimed in sentence one above is the same as sentence two & with defined parameters ?

Prove MR166 that the model claimed in sentence three is the same as either sentence one or two and with defined parameters ?

Prove MR166 that the model claimed in sentence four bears any relationship to those in the previous three sentences and that the parameters are defined ?

Embarrassed ?

MR166 why do you show willful ignorance of models, how they function, probabilistic basis of interactions/activity & the asymptotic nature of the whole process ?

Education MR166, Community college for you PLEASE !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
I hate all politics

"Just because you do not take in interest in politics does not mean politics does not take an interest in you."
Pericles
"All it take for socialism to prevail is for citizens to do nothing."
Stump is doing his best to do nothing.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
Until Stump and the other AGWites can identify the causes of ALL climate changes for the past millions of years, AGW is a belief system, not science.

AND until Rygg et al learn to read, to understand science, publications, studies and empirical data, there is no point in trying to talk to them
talking to some uneducated idiot firmly in the grasp of their belief system which denies empirical data because it threatens their ability to feel good about themselves is tantamount to arguing the latest theories with a rock... the only think you will do is get hoarse and nothing will change

there are none so ignorant as those who will not see

as for hating politics ... who says I do nothing?
only you, rygg, would be so idiotic as to ASSUME that I ignore it & do nothing just because I hate it.
my senators/rep's know me by name, both state AND federal
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
I hate all politics

"Just because you do not take in interest in politics does not mean politics does not take an interest in you."
Pericles
"All it take for socialism to prevail is for citizens to do nothing."
Stump is doing his best to do nothing.

oh, almost forgot... just because I hate it HERE and try to ignore it HERE does not mean that I ignore it PERIOD

I've sent studies as well as many a letter to congress supporting my position and what I believe. (not just about climate science either)

therefore your assumptions are based upon only your own lack of ability to do anything, which is reflected in your arguments: baseless and without merit.

show me empirical data supporting your position... oh, forgot. there IS NONE
sorry
learn to read
BYE BYE, TROLL
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
empirical data supporting your position..

The past several hundred years of history: Leonidis, Rome, Holy Roman Empire, Christian monks, Magna Carta, Martin Luther, Gutenberg press, Locke, Adam Smith, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution... leading billions into liberty and prospertity
On the negative side we have Rome, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, FDR, Carter, BHO, AGWites....leading billions into tyranny and despair.

As for AGWism, the the climate has been warming for over 10,000 years. Ever hear of the ice man? He died over 5000 years ago and was covered with ice. Only recently the ice returned to the same level as when he died.
So there has been an overall warming trends with peaks and valleys like the MWP and the little ice age long before CO2 can be the cause. That's empirical data AGWites must cover up.
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
@ryggy aka WhiteBikerTrash
Your desperation and stupidity is on full display with your last post.

You need to stay with your like minded brethern at the circle-jerk known as American (non)Thinker. You know the ones, admirers of Putin and advocating armed revolution. A military coup and rule by a junta gets plenty of up votes. That's where you belong, not here.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
Now that the empirical data show global temperatures declining while empirical data show CO2 increasing, while AGWites like Stump (aka vietvet?) accept that CO2 does not cause global warming?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
Now that the empirical data show global temperatures declining while empirical data show CO2 increasing, while AGWites like Stump (aka vietvet?) accept that CO2 does not cause global warming?

all these links to supporting evidence might give me a nosebleed looking them all up... oh wait... again, there are NONE

wow...
guess that means that (ahem) there is NO EMPIRICAL DATA supporting your argument!

and no, I am not Vietvet. He was a Marine (Semper Fi) in 'Nam, I was in the gulf I/II afghanistan/bosnia/and a few other scrapes

http://biology.du...ge3.html

http://news.disco...0411.htm

http://theconsens...ect.com/

http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

http://www.climat...l-levels

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2014
"Where is the scientific integrity and self-correction we idealize? Sadly, Brookes' report includes a handful of anonymous testimonials that highlight the frequent politics behind scientific corrections, such as:

I reviewed a paper and found fabricated data. The journal rejected the paper, and subsequently it was published in a different journal with some problem data still present. The editor at the new journal knows about the previous rejection for reasons of data fabrication, but refuses to take up the matter with the authors unless I am willing to have my real name revealed as an accuser. I refused, because the lead author is on a panel that reviews my grant proposals."
http://www.psmag....e-78308/
But, of course, climate scientists are not life scientists so they can be trusted.

This is why it's so important for Mann, Aderson, to have their own research groups. They can control the research.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
ryggesogn2 is wrong yet again
Now that the empirical data show global temperatures declining while empirical data show CO2 increasing, while AGWites like Stump (aka vietvet?) accept that CO2 does not cause global warming?
See this link ryggesogn2,
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

Your claimed university physics degree ryggesogn2, did teach you about 'outliers' and several other issues regarding probability & statistics and how to properly interpret data ?

ryggesogn2, you CLAIM to have a University degree in Physics - where from and when ?

You asked me, I responded, why are you silent and refuse to reciprocate ?

It seems ryggesogn2, you have been caught out in a lie ! Again !