frflyer

Let's Just Say It: Print More Money

NRC report on "hockey stick"

scienceblogs.com/delto...

Article on Hockey Stick and NAS study that proves it's validity.

gristmill.grist.org/st...

Let's Just Say It: Print More Money

Glen L.

"the graph looks like the famous "hockey stick" graph that the global warming purveyors use to show the supposed increase in global temperatures - only this hockey stick is real"

97% of active climate scientists say you are wrong, but I guess you and the oil companies and their massive disinformation campaign are right. You have been fooled by the biggest propaganda campaign in history. It is no different than what the tobacco companies did, when they claimed smoking was safe. In fact they use the same scientist shills.
Like most deniers, you use the same worn out arguments that have been thoroughly disproven and debunked. Try gettting your information from real climate scientists like at realclimate.org, Desmogblog, Openmind, Deltoid, Watthead, Grist, etc. If you were truly a skeptic, you would be skeptical of the denier propaganda campaign and their phony scientists, and their phony lists of skeptic scientists. Yes everyone of those lists is bogus.

It's no accident that laymen and gullible skeptics like you represent nearly half the population, when the numbers for actual climate scientists are an overwhelming majority, with only the handful of scientists who are paid by the oil and coal companies on the other side.

As famed climat scientist James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the one who Bush censored, says.

"The disinformation campaign today borders on crimes against humanity. We do know the consequences of inaction."

Take your fake hockey stick graph story to the blogs of real climate scientists and they will have your head.

Keep to a subject you actually know something about and you will be better off.

For the rest of readers, sorry for the off topic content, but he asked for it.

The Five Most Important Energy Forecasts of 2008

MarkJ
You are completely misinformed about climate change. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. And getting stronger. The number of skeptic scientists is shrinking from a tiny number to an even tinier number.

www.logicalscience.com.../

I get my info from the websites of actual climate scientists, you should do the same.

Otherwise you fall into this kind of fantasy

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"
www.skepticalscience.c...

"The global warming is a hoax believers don't understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions." from comments posted by LeeAnnG
gristmill.grist.org/st......

And here is who is fooling you
www.desmogblog.com/sla...
"But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders."

"This is a triumph of disinformation. It is a living proof of the success of one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world."

more links that tell the truth from actual climate scientists

environment.newscienti...

scholarsandrogues.word.../

gristmill.grist.org/sk...

scienceblogs.com/illco...

www.realclimate.org/
Climate Change from Climate Scientists

The Five Most Important Energy Forecasts of 2008

Andy
Your numbers on how much wind is required to equal that from coal are way off. It takes less than three times as much wind to equal a constant supply like coal, not twenty times like you said.
So what? It's still cheaper, cleaner, and requires no fuel ever.
Clean coal will cost about 16cents /kWh when we have clean coal in 10 to 20 years.
Wind is about 1/4 the price and can be built now.

Lets clear up a misperception. No one is advocating tearing down all our coal or nuclear or gas plants without first replacing them with renewable energy. Coal will be phased out over time.
Our coal plants are old. Most are over 40 years old.
They just won't be replace with new coal plants.

Someday, clean coal may be a reality, but until you can remove the mercury and other pollutants as well as capturing and sequestering all the CO2 , it is not clean. We have lots of coal, so if in the future, we figure out how to use it wisely, it isn't going anywhere.

Same for new nuclear tech. Maybe it will be safe and will use thorium or whatever in the future, but right now it is not a good near term solution. We can flat out build solar and wind quicker, cheaper and with no worries about safety or pollution, or fuel.

John Peterson who writes articles here about storage solutions said that when we reach 15% renewable energy, storage will become an issue. We are a long way from that.
He said it had become an issue in Denmark, but Denmark has 20% wind power already.
Plus, wind and solar compliment each other to a certain extent because the wind generally blows more at night when PV is not generating.

The Five Most Important Energy Forecasts of 2008

I messed up one of the links

Science magazine article on Stablilization Wedges to solve global warming
carbonsequestration.us...

The Five Most Important Energy Forecasts of 2008

The hand
You mentioned line loss over long distances.
That's why all the sensible energy plans call for new high voltage DC transmission lines or HVDC to bring power from solar and wind farms to other parts of the country. There is much less line loss with HVDC over long distances. Anything over 30 miles favors DC in fact. Don't confuse this with the use of superconductors that john s. gordon mentions in his comment.


Andy 1234 -you may be an engineer, but you are under-informed. The numbers have been crunched and these ideas are mostly well thought out. Solar thermal power plants with heat storage can act as base load power, as they produce a steady output of power even at night.
What's more, they can store heat 20-100 times cheaper than storing electricity.
They will be able to provide power at 5-8 cents a kWh once they are up to scale in several years.
They are fast to build and use ordinary building materials. So low tech we could have done it 100 years ago. They can be air or water cooled, and can even desalinize water at the same time, when water cooled. Molten salt is the best medium for storing heat. United Technology's Sunstrand/Rockedyne division has developed advanced systems for molten salt use. They have also created a new solar thermal company called Solar Reserve. There are about 10 companies I've heard of in solar thermal.

See the article in Scientific American that proposes building solar plants in the southwest, achieving 69% solar grid by 2050 and spending less in tax dollars over 35-40 years than we spent on the internet in the last 35 years.
One fourth or less than we now give oil companies in subsidies and tax credits.
www.sciam.com/article....

For more on solar thermal:

www.salon.com/news/fea...

climateprogress.org/20.../

solarsouthwest.org/

Combining centralized solar in the southwest with distributed power from solar panels all over the country will give us solar on a vast scale. Photovoltaics are within a few years of grid parity, not including the external or hidden costs of fossil fuels.

Wind is also much cheaper to build than coal or nuclear plants and about a third the cost of building nuclear. A recent govt report says we could have 20% wind power by 2030. Solar could be bigger.

Geothermal with advanced technology could be huge.

The costs of not switching to renewable energy far exceeds the cost of doing it.

In the U.S. with a tiny fraction of our power coming from wind and solar, we talk constantly about the "intermittency" of solar and wind.
Meanwhile Denmark already has 20% wind power. Parts of Denmark and Germany have 40% wind power.

Yes we need more storage solutions, better battery technology etc. What people don't get is that we can make a big start toward renewables with current technology.

I would argue that solar is already cheaper than fossil fuels when you consider the hidden costs of those. and wind is already cheaper without those considerations.

While there are several energy plans I've seen they all have the same elements. Solar, Wind, HVDC, plug in hybrids, biomass, geothermal, energy conservation and efficiency, etc.

I recommend reading the following articles.


www.setamericafree.org...

An Introductin to Core Climate Solutions
analyses and updates the solutions outlined in the Science magazine article on stablilization wedges below.
climateprogress.org/20.../

Science magazine article on Stablilization Wedges to solve global warminghttp://carbonse...

climateprogress.org/20.../

www.americanprogressac...

climateprogress.org/20.../


What makes it hard for renewable to compete with fossil fuels is the massive subsidies fossil fuels and nuclear receive.

See my comments on subsidies at yesterday's article on solar at Seeking Alpha
seekingalpha.com/artic...

The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex

to the person who complains of "income distribution schemes" Are you referring to the massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the wealthy class that Reaganomics, or trickle down economics has brought us.
This is the biggest transfer of wealth in history. The top 20% in the U.S. received 89% of the economic growth since 1983. Supply side economics only benefits the rich, period. The lower 40% achieved a negative growth in wealth over the same period. I suppose 80% of us are just lazy communist sympathizers. The right has it wrong on just about every issue.

What the author fails to note is the part that conservative thinking has played in this massive military buildup. Conservatives have embraced an ideology of never negotiating with those who it deems to be "evil".
This black and white, us and them, good verses evil thinking is absurd and childish. This has been going on since before WW2 and is the mind set of the whole conservative movement, as far as foreign policy goes.
And this thinking has proved to be wrong in every case.
I would suggest reading the new book "U.S. and Them" by Scoblic. You will see that this mindset has always been wrong on foreign policy issues, and we see the same thing today with the administration's refusal to negotiate with countries it doesn't like. It was negotiating from strength that got us through the cold war. If it had been up to conservatives, we would have already had a nuclear war with the Soviet Union long ago. They couldn't let go of the idea of a winnable nuclear holocaust.

What's odd about this is that much of conservative thinking comes from an uninformed interpretation of Darwins theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest. The
fit survive more by cooperation, not by beating the other side over the head. If you look at nature, symbiosis among species, is how species survive, not just by killing off other species.

In the conservative way of thinking, individual freedom and responsibility has become every man for himself, which makes no sense, since the whole point of having any society or civilization is for the mutual benefit of the members thereof. These days, the mere suggestion of sharing, is met with accusations of communist sypathizing.
Want to solve the Social Security problem? Simple, stop giving it to those who don't need it. McCain gets close to $2000 a month in SS payments, yet he is managing to run for president, and doesn't seem to be hurting for money. He also receives full military medical benefits, yet won't vote for more benefits for veterans. So much for supporting the troops. The same can be said of the Republican party in general. They support sending young men to war and won't help them when they return.

Worried about nuclear proliferation. Good, lets fill the world with nuclear reactors, that ought to help. But invest in renewable energy that will never need any fuel ever?

If I am to understand some of the comments above, it is more cost effective to spend billions being the worlds policeman, than to spend it on our own citizens. Ok!