How Much of Your Money Wasted on ‘Climate Change’? Try $10.6 Million a Day
Seems everyone is talking about the massive United States federal deficit and how it has now reached an unfathomable $14 trillion. Is there any way to comprehend such a bloated number? Try this: the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. At that speed a photon of light starts at the surface of the Sun and reaches the Earth in 8 minutes. On Star Trek, the speed of light is warp one — at that speed the Enterprise would travel about 6 trillion miles in one year. If each dollar of the deficit is represented by one mile, it would take the Enterprise more than two years traveling the speed of light to go 14 trillion miles.
So what can we cut out of the federal budget to make any kind of dent in this enormous pile of borrowed money? We could start with the vast sums of cash being wasted on climate change research.
This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.
The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.
Here is what the federal government thinks is happening with the Earth’s climate due to the burning of fossil fuels — the following quote is from chapter 15 of the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request:
Past scientific research demonstrates that the Earth’s climate is changing, that humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century, and that further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption. This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.
The first sentence is obvious: of course the Earth’s climate is changing; it always has and always will no matter what we do.
The next statement — “humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century” — is speculation. The statement completely ignores any natural variability in the climate. Apparently all of nature’s power to regulate the Earth’s temperature, which has been going on for millions of years, stopped 50 years ago, and now carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the climate. This is political and social advocacy, not science.
Then, this statement: “further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption.” The implication is that there has already been widespread climate disruption — there has not. There is no more extreme weather going on now than anytime in the last 2,000 years. Per the complex Orwellian world of government-speak, we have now moved on from “global warming” to “climate change” to “climate disruption.” Climate change wasn’t frightening enough! What’s next? My money’s on “climate disintegration” — that should keep the money flowing so we can figure out who and what will be disintegrated.
The statement then reads: “This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.” And that is the key to all of this: the fear factor. Pitching rising sea levels and other catastrophic consequences to keep the research money coming.
If you want to know where to save money in the budget, cut the vast sums of redundant funding headed to redundant federal agencies doing redundant climate change research. Four billion dollars to study climate change — and that’s just for this year!
Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go to chapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.
The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation — they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.
Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.
“how it has now reached an unfathomable $14 trillion”
Yeah. Things were really cool when it was just a completely fathomable 12-13 trillion. You know – before obama came along and the speed of light mattered to conservatives
I could have SWORN ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ referred to, oh I don’t know, ‘changing’ the way our country, Government did its day-to-day.
Selective amnesia is cool, eh?
Obama’s such a dupe he had a recent roundtable with successful private industries recently. Why?
To put on the facade to his blinded admirers (Hi Matthew) he means business, but also due to the fact his economic team has got to be the WORST known to grace the WH.
Yep, I’m ‘shocked’ the Government strongarming their way into the college loan biz, GM, cash for clunkers venture, placing Wall Street under their thumb, err, ‘regulation’, as well as payoffs, err, ‘bailouts’ to Union and Governemnt entities, $75 billion per month for 8 months is drawing NO FRUIT. Yep, a real mystery..
And here I thought the ‘financial guru’ Obama would lower unemployment and encourage private industry to invest, thrive and hire folks. What a ‘surprise’.
This hope and change is an ‘incredible success’- if you live in Burkina Faso!
OH YEAH !!! HE’S A FINANCIAL GURU !!! CAN’T YOU SEE JUST HOW WELL HE’S TAKEN OUR $$$ AND STREWN THEM TO ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD…MONEY TO HAMAS/PLO, GIVING MONEY TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE, MONEY TO SOUTH AMERICAN DICTATORS FOR OIL WHILE SHUTTERING OUR COASTAL OIL EXPLORATIONS, BOWING SCRAPING AND WHIMPERING TO EVERY CROOKED ANTI-AMERICAN COUNTRY ON EARTH, BURNING UP $$$ ON HOW MANY HOB-NOBING VACATIONS WITH THOSE WHO THINK HE MUST HAVE MIS-PLACED HIS WAITERS UNIFORM, AND SHE IS NOW WEARING $600.00+ SHOES THAT AIN’T EVEN FITTIN TO WALK IN THE COTTON FIELDS WITH…WHAT HAPPENED TO HER TOUTING AND SINGING THE PRAISES OF THE TARGET STORE WHEN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, NOT TO MENTION THE $$$$ BLOWN ON HER SPAIN VACATION WHILE TELLING THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA TO CUT BACK AND VISIT THE FLORIDA, ALA, AND MISS COAST (WHICH ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL BEACHES IN THE WORLD !!! BAH !!! TIME FOR A REAL CHANGE BERORE WE’RE ALL BROKE AND IN THE PO HOUSE.
Matthew: This article didn’t mention Obama – but I feel your guilt, embarrassment and your need to jump to his defense.
The real point is that government is too big, too incompetent, prone to waste, fraud and aggressive spending on problems that don’t really exist or that are out if its constitutional domain. It rarely demonstrates any desire to check its growth where its pet ideological agenda items are concerned. And btw, most of that 14 Trillion can be easily assigned to “Progressive” programs installed by predominately Democratic congresses.
Actually the National Debt increased under Pelosi’s Speakership by $5.34 Trillion in New Debt—Or $3.66 Billion Per Day. The National Debt matters and both sides spend too much – the Republicans are the lesser of two evils, and thanks to Conservatives (and the TEA party folks) they will hopefully become fiscally Conservative again.
We need a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. It was tried by the Republicans under Clinton. It takes 67 votes in the Senate to get started but got only 66. All 34 Senators voting against it were Democrats.
You all hit Matthew with so many facts but you have to realize that as a liberal they don’t want or need any ‘stinkin’ facts. Facts mean nothing, it’s all about how you feel, that’s all that matters. Now Matthew tucked tail and went back to the HuffingtonPost and RealClimate where he can safely express opinions devoid of any facts and be warmly congratulated for his efforts.
“The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature.”
Imagine a 250ml bottle with a hole in the bottom. It has 200ml of water in it, but water is flowing out of the hole at the rate of 1ml per hour. In the top, a steady drip is adding 1ml per hour, so the bottle always has 200ml of water in it and never overflows.
Then you come along and turn on another drip that only drops 0.1ml of extra water into the bottle per hour. What happens?
1ml is flowing out, but 1.1ml is flowing in. So every hour, the contents of the bottle increase by 0.1ml. In 500 hours, the bottle will overflow.
So what caused the bottle to overflow? The original drip of 1ml per hour, or the drip you added of 0.1ml per hour?
It’s exactly the same concept, as you well know. So why are you trying to obscure the simple reality behind this process? Where you say half is immediately absorbed, you are also saying half isn’t.
That half is the extra 0.1ml drip in my analogy. That half is the part that is increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere because it is the extra CO2 that can’t be absorbed and instead builds up, just like that 0.1ml that makes the bottle overflow.
“Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect.”
True, but 0.1ml is 0.1% of the water in the bottle, but it is that 0.1% that causes it to overflow. In nature, water vapour absorbed by the air stays there a very short time, then precipitates out again. The CO2 we put in the atmosphere stays there for years. This has the result of making the atmosphere warmer, which in turn allows it to hold more water and so on. In other words, 0.1% is nothing UNLESS it is 0.1% more than the natural processes can deal with.
“Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.”
Good try, but no. As in my bottle example, the natural CO2 emmissions are balanced by the natural CO2 sinks. Just like the drip at the top of the bottle is totally balanced by the hole in the bottom, resulting in a stable water level in the bottle. In nature, this meant for thousands of years, CO2 content in the atmosphere stayed stable, fluctuating by only a few parts per million. In the short time we’ve been pouring CO2 into the atmosphere we’ve nearly doubled it.
This in fact can be directly measured because CO2 from burnt fossil fuels contains different ratios of the different carbon isotopes, and we can measure how much of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere came from fossil fuels by those ratios.
The drip you added was only 10% of the total water flowing into the bottle, but it was 100% of the excess. The original drip was completely balanced by the leak, so it was the excess you added that caused the overflow and thus you were 100% responsible. This is pretty straight forward logic that anyone should be able to understand. If they aren’t trying to deny reality, that is.
“The next statement — “humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century” — is speculation. The statement completely ignores any natural variability in the climate.”
I read “most of” thus clearly the statement suggests at least SOME of the warming could be natural, completely contradicting what you claim that statement says. I’m pretty sure you know how to read English, so why are you trying to mislead?
In fact we know some of it is natural, but we also know that even when we add up all the possible natural causes, they still do not account for ALL of the increase. This means some of it HAS to be unnatural. For example the amount of solar radiation hitting Earth has increased slightly but it is not enough to account for all of the temperature increase. The only way the numbers add up is if our GHG emissions are included, and then we find that we are “mostly responsible”, as the statement said.
“Apparently all of nature’s power to regulate the Earth’s temperature, which has been going on for millions of years, stopped 50 years ago, and now carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the climate. This is political and social advocacy, not science.”
Are you serious? No, really. You surely can’t believe a word of what you just said? Who in their right mind would think that? Clearly the scientists have never even remotely suggested such a stupid claim. So why are you making stuff up? The scientists have ALWAYS said that we are OVERPOWERING the natural processes, not that there are NO natural processes! That is utterly ridiculous. It seems that last sentence is talking about YOU, not the scientists. Your claims are so unfounded, so obviously wrong, and said with such faux conviction that it is clear you are spreading propaganda, not science.
“The implication is that there has already been widespread climate disruption — there has not.”
Funny, one minute you’re trying to say it’s natural, the next you’re trying to say it hasn’t happened. What is it? Has the temperature of the planet increased? If it has, is that not a widespread climate disruption? Unless you think the temperature is not part of the climate, then it is obvious some disruption has happened.
“Per the complex Orwellian world of government-speak, we have now moved on from “global warming” to “climate change” to “climate disruption.””
OMG, are you serious? Here let me spell it out for you “Global Warming” is the cause, “Climate Change” is the effect. This has NEVER changed. One is causing the other, they are not mutually exclusive. As for trying to say there is a difference between “Climate Change” and “Climate Disruption”… well that is so stupid I shouldn’t need to point out why, but I will. To change something is to disrupt it. End of English lesson. If this is what you think passes for a logical argument, I can see why you can’t understand the basic science.
“Four billion dollars to study climate change — and that’s just for this year!”
AIF received 170 billion dollars in taxpayer money. You were saying?
That 4 billion is an insult, but not for the reasons you believe. While you harp on about the tiny drop in the bucket that the US spends on climate research, consider how much money they give to bankers for being idiots. You will find the US government has given more money to AIG than it has spent on climate research IN TOTAL.
“Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?”
Are you kidding? Are you utterly retarded, or a total liar? There is no middle ground. At 4 billion a year, it would take 3500 YEARS to spend 14 trillion. I can’t believe you even tried such a retarded argument! In fact, at 4 billion a year, it would take 42 years for the US government to spend as much on climate research as it gave to AIG! Seriously. Just how stupid do you think your readers are?
When you say “retarded”, you sound like a superb intellectual. I understand if you do not like the opinions of the author, but to insult him completely undermines your argument and makes you look laughable.
I do not believe in, nor do I deny, Climate Change. But I will not admit that it is “real” until there is undeniable proof that it exists. I find it disgusting that everyone picks a side and sticks to it, regardless of the science and statistics that are thrown at them.
Wow. You forgot to mention that the oil, gas, and coal industries are the real welfare queens of the energy industry. They received 3-4 times as much in federal subsidies, tax breaks, and other largesse than renewable energy folks — about $72B compared to about $29B from 2002-2008.
Leave your conservative credentials at the door if you’re going to attack government participation in one industry but completely ignore what’s happening to an industry that you either like or that you think deserves to be taken out of the free market and put on the public dole. If that’s not enough, then drop your view that you are a patriotic as you see no value in ending the practice of sending our money overseas for energy, especially to those authoritarian nations that also fund our terrorist enemies.
Finally, leave any credibility you have in economics since you probably also refuse to count the costs of the pollution and public health problems that follow the oil and coal companies’ work. Economists on the right and the left call this unpaid externalities. (Kinda strange that we fine someone for throwing garbage out of their car windows, but oil and coal get to the throw their garbage out for free, free, free.)
Please see the chart in this citation for the stats on subsidies. Click on “graphic” in the final paragraph.
http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205
Presumably you dislike sending our money overseas to purchase the oil of despots, yet you would object strenuously if we increased our drilling for our own oil, despoiling all sorts of pristine lands. But you wouldn’t mind installing windmills and solar panels on those same pristine lands. Does the cognitive dissonance never hurt your head?
I recently saw what must be called a “wind farm” as I traveled I65 to northern Indiana. The first few windmills were kind of interesting looking; the continuing miles and miles of windmill-filled fields became ugly and disconcerting. I wonder how few oil rigs it would take to replace all those windmills. This morning I saw on television a big field of solar panels. I confess I found the scene less than pristine. Wait till we get into the required maintenance of all those windmills and solar panels. Hopefully the prairie dogs will be as happy with the unnatural structures and the human traffic as the caribou in Alaska have become with the unnatural oil pipeline (they seem to enjoy the comparative warmth of the pipe!). And with a little mind control, maybe we humans can come to view all those ugly windmills as “picturesque,” as they line miles and miles of our highways (no more driving through those foreboding forests, with their deer and other wildlife all too likely to appear along or on the highway).
I live in the South East of Australia,and we have a total of 92 windmills along the coast. They are ugly as sin and do NOT produce enough energy for their size and number. Also I was told that they kill more birds than all the shooters do in hunting season,and it was backed up by the local rag.
Don’t let them spread,they are awful.
Michigan is trying their best to get windmills installed IN the Great Lakes; they’re currently setting up bureaucracies, rules and regulations. We have friends who live on Lake Michigan and they’re as mad as Teddy Kennedy refusing windmills off his estate (though they aren’t hypocritical liberals like he was). Imagine having your beautiful view filled with big ugly windmills. Oh well, maybe they’ll make it all okay by painting smiley faces on the blades.
Michigan collects super-high property taxes on property ON the Lake. I wonder if they’ll at least reduce the property taxes of those owners whose property value has plummeted.
On my way to northern Michigan I pass a tiny little oil drilling set-up, unobtrusively nestled in a small clearing back in the woods. THIS is what they want to replace with windmills?!! IN THE BEAUTIFUL LAKE?? Lord help us all.
Come to Ca. and I will show you miles of wind mills all subsidized with your taxpayer money. They do not produce a lot of power, I am just waiting for the hills to fly away. And we all know what great financial shape Ca. is in don`t we. Why should the American taxpayer send billions of dollars to foreign countries, so that the one of those countries can drill in the Gulf but Obama says we can not drill. This is not an Obama problem it is an American problem. We have to tell our government to get out of our way, so we can actually make a living in our own country. Look I am all for being civil but when another man has his one hand in my pocket and the other around my throat, civility ends. I just watched a fisherman who can not fish anymore and support his family, because of the oil spill. This man got down on his knees and begged the government official for the help he was promised to receive.The government official had a nice suit on and a nice government car plus getting per deum on top of his salary. How long would you be civil?
“oil, gas, and coal industries are the real welfare queens”
Well the idea is to stop all of this “welfare” and btw, only a liberal progressive refers to a tax break as “welfare”.
“you see no value in ending the practice of sending our money overseas for energy”
Oil is fungible and if we only bought from non-terrorist supporting nations, it wouldn’t make a difference. And when did it become “our” money? I thought I was making my own purchasing decisions with my own money. In the Americas hemisphere we have 25% of the world’s oil reserves and only 10% of the world’s population. The choice isn’t support for terrorism versus windmills – except in the disingenuous and self serving thinking of the left.
“..refuse to count the costs of the pollution and public health problems that follow the oil and coal companies’ work. Economists on the right and the left call this unpaid externalities”
Eco-extremists love to over-emphasize these externalities and to ignore the huge fee and tax structure that pays for the massive regulatory bureaucracies that watch over these industries but somehow cannot keep us from being victimized by them. We pay all of these costs. Like it or not, that’s the way capitalism works – businesses pass costs on to customers.
Your theory only works as long as you can take other peoples money.for what you want. Geeze if you want to end our dependency on foreign oil, then lets drill our own oil. Everybody else is going to drill for oil any way, and I can guarantee you that the US would do a cleaner job of drilling than foreigners. At the same time build 12 new nuclear plants and we would be energy independent in a few years. France gets about 70 to 80 percent of their power from nuclear plants. Spain is going broke with its wind mills!
The oil industry is a business, just like a factory with buildings, production costs, employees, and depreciation of capital. Those are not “subsidies, tax breaks, and largesse”. They are all legitimate business expenses that can be written off against income. Oil doesn’t just sit in the ground with a big billboard overhead saying “Drill Here!”. It must be coaxed to the surface in a very capital-intensive way.
It’s time for the Green Industry stand in its own two feet and compete just like Oil, Nuclear, and Coal do. One difference between the Green Industry and Oil – Oil receives no direct payments from the Government for research on how to produce oil, nor taxpayer subsidies for buying products that use oil, nor does the oil industry get tax breaks on profits just for being a politically-favored industry, nor does the government require consumers to purchase 10% fossil fuel in conjunction with other products.
Fossil fuel is responsible for less than 2% of Global Warming, er Climate Change or whatever non-debunked term is being used today. (Mr Horn states .015%, which only shows there is a dearth of research regarding why Anthropogenic Global Warming ISN’T a problem.)
Let’s also look at some up to date info so that we can compare your budget stats for renewable energy to those for the fossil fuel socialists:
Reuters / February 1, 2010
The Obama asked Congress for a second time to end some $36.5 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies over ten years … ending the subsidies would not have much of a financial impact on energy companies, as $36.5 billion represents about 1 percent of expected domestic oil and gas revenues over the coming decade.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201
NYTimes / July 3, 2010
an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process … Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers … “We’re giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway,” said Sima J. Gandhi, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “That’s not an incentive; that’s a giveaway” … As recently as 2005, when windfall profits for energy companies prompted even President George W. Bush — a former Texas oilman himself — to publicly call for an end to incentives, the energy bill he and Congress enacted still included $2.6 billion in oil subsidies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
Show me some conservative principles by challenging these giveaways every time you criticize what is happening for the domestic renewable energy industry.
My dear friend Fowler sites this from Reuters:
“The Obama asked Congress for a second time to end some $36.5 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies over ten years … ending the subsidies would not have much of a financial impact on energy companies, as $36.5 billion represents about 1 percent of expected domestic oil and gas revenues over the coming decade.”
Three points: One, Reuters is now using the term “The Obama” to mean Pres. Obama? Wow! This is some kind of promotion for the Pres., isn’t it?
Two: there was a Dem Congressional majority in power in Feb. 2010. We threw those mugs out, remember? Three: I am holding The Obama personally responsible for the outrageous price of gasoline now being paid by the workforce of this country in order to get to work. This additional cost will also make recovery of the economy much more difficult.
Drill here. Drill now. Refine here. Refine now.
You know Fred, if we suck all the oil we have in the US and our EEZ out of the ground over then next year, it would only lower the price of gas a tiny fraction. Worldwide demand is the cause of gas price spikes. Scientific American did an article and said:
The MMS has estimated that there are around 18 billion barrels in the underwater areas now off-limits to drilling. That’s significantly less than in oil fields open for business in the Gulf of Mexico, coastal Alaska and off the coast of southern California, where there are 10.1 billion barrels of known oil reserves as well as an estimated 85.9 billion more.
To put these numbers in perspective: one U.S. barrel of oil equals 42 gallons (159 liters) and, according to the Energy Information Administration (an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy that provides energy data and analysis), the U.S. consumes some 20.8 million barrels of oil a day—almost one quarter of the 87 million used worldwide. That adds up to 7.59 billion barrels a year.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-make-us-independent
Your idea that Obama has any control over the price of gas is ludicrous. Also, the post looks like they had a typo, so your misplaced hatred of Obama, should be against the Obama Administration, like the Reuters article said.
“You know Fred, if we suck all the oil we have in the US and our EEZ out of the ground over then next year, it would only lower the price of gas a tiny fraction.”
OK, Paul/D.Fowler, I’ll bite. What is that tiny fraction?how much oil is there “in the U.S.”?
FROM YOUR LINK:
“In other words, says Ian Nathan, a senior research analyst with New York City–based Energy Intelligence Group (a publisher of data and information on the global energy industry), it is possible that areas currently off-limits to drilling might actually contain a lot more—or less, for that matter—petroleum than previously believed.”
I don’t trust anything Scientific American says anymore. It is a lefty pub that totally sold out over global warming. My science news comes from Popular Mechanics, which afaik has NEVER sold out its scientific principles for the sake of lucre.
Frankly, we don’t know how much is in the offshore fields because we *aren’t allowed to do exploratory drilling*. There’s enough there, however, that it has the interests of the Russians and the Chinese – Russia just made a deal with BP that will increase Arctic drilling, and the Chinese are doing all kinds of things in the Caribbean that ensures their presence there. So – we should just let other countries come over and plunder the resources that are here just off our shore (and do it with less environmental care than we would), then allow them to sell those resources back to us? That makes no sense at all.
Actually, Scientific American’s first leftist sellout was jumping 100% on the obviously politically motivated ‘nuclear winter’ scare during the Reagan years in the mid 80s. That series of ‘studies’ by Carl Sagan was shown to be very flawed — and SciAm dragged their feet just like now in giving up on the political agenda parading as science (gutting our economy now, versus disarming ourselves in the face of the Soviets back then).
Hate the administration, not the man who hired every person in the administration and directs their every policy? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?
The man behind the curtain and every curtain for that matter is…..SOROS
The ‘domestic renewable energy industry’ you speak so highly of is being FORCED upon us.
Maryland, for example is having to pay exponentially higher fuel, natural gas taxes for their homes because the state’s incorporating fuel/alternative fuel for household use. But hey, ‘control is compassion’, right?
This draconian like act, even though AGW/junk science has been debunked time and time again. Not to mention these, ahem, ‘scientists’ refuse to have a bipartisan discussion on the matter.
I’d assume for this, ‘settled science’ the Mother Gaia-types would be jumping at the bit for such a meeting.
Question: Who receives more monies due to taxes from fuel sales? The Government or the Oil industry(ies) providing said product? The Government.
Deflection is yours, Matthew’s and other like-minded posters raison-d’etre. It’s counterproductive and juvenile. Speaks volumes of your go-nowhere, emotion-trumps-everything reasoning.
D.Fowler,
If Carbon Dioxide is in fact a dangerous pollutant, and the primary culprit in “Climate Disruption”, your point is well made. If it is not a dangerous pollutant, but a necessary gas found in very short supply in our atmosphere and, if “Climate Disruption” is NOT happening but in stead just the latest catch phrase of the socialist left, then your contention falls flat. I see no evidence, and I’ve looked for it, that Carbon Dioxide is at levels that are problematic, nor do I see any evidence that “man caused” Climate Disruption is actually occurring. What we have here is another attempt by the socialist left to get their hands in the taxpayers pockets.
Yet another reason to take tax dollars away from the Feds. They are throwing away our money wholesale to foreign gov’t's and adventurism, stupid programs at home that don’t work and operations for a sex-change.
We should be probably paying 25% of our current tax rate.
I propose a flat tax of 5% Fed, 2% State and no sales tax. Let the devil take the hindmost and stupid gov’t pensions too. Let’s reorganize this bitch from the ground up and spend money where it’s actually needed and not on political lawsuits, spotted owls, and illegal immigrants. By any reasonable way of thinking we have a huge surplus that is being squandered on nonsense.
Not, One, More, Cent. Had we invested 20 years ago in all of the oil drilling that we wanted AND constructed all of the nuclear power plants that we needed, we would be energy INDEPENDENT right now. Think about that. We wouldn’t have to go to any arab dictator for one drop of oil and we probably could have pulled out of the Middle East well before 9/11, taking away bin Laden’s biggest reason for attacking us (although he probably would have attacked us regardless of whether or not we were in the Middle East). But at least we would have control over our own destiny rather than have to go begging, hat in hand, to the OPEC nations to keep prices down. I hope all of the environmental Nazis out there are happy with what they’ve accomplished. Nobody talks about the blood that’s on their hands for preventing us from achieving energy independence. I certainly believe that more of a case can be made in the next election for more drilling and more nuclear energy plants and that a mjority of the country will be receptive to it this time around, especially if gas prices hit $4 a gallon.
Dude, as happens often with your posts, you bring up some good points.
By the reactions I often get by posting who I worked for, apparently people hate companies that make money. Even though those companies are full of folks who make a living and feed their families because of it. Oh well.
I lived on a nuke sub for years, and then worked and retired for GE power generation devisions. We serviced power plants of all fuel types. Including, of course, nuclear powered ones. My shop completely rebuilt the Three Mile Island plant after their incident. But that illustrates the problem. It was rebuilt and upgraded. Sat idle, then shut down. All at a cost of millions.
Watts Bar in TN. The power distribution equipment(in unit two) sat idle for so long, that it all had to be rebuilt and re calibrated to be made operable again. Not yet to be used…Costing millions. And it’s been sitting(again) for 15 years. Just to get that unit started, it will have to done AGAIN.
I could fill pages with this type of nonsense. We, as a country, are going backwards. Third world countries are passing us in our generation capabilities.
And we, both as tax payers and consumers of energy, are paying(was going to say millions, but apparently…)billions to make it happen.
It’s insane. Think of how much more efficient those facilities would have been if the last three decades had been used for development and research, rather than being killed by regulation.
I’ve seen the numbers. And not the propaganda published by the government and the MSM (talk about being redundant).
I wasn’t involved in the petroleum industry. So just my common sense guides my opinions on that, but the power generation industry numbers don’t lie.
The American public is getting screwed.
Do you know the real reason the Rancho Seco power plant in Sacramento California got shut down? I’ve been told polotics and am sure but I know a lot of money was spent to build it and it has never been fully fired up. You seem to be in the industry and would like to know the truth, which is all any of us really want but seems those that will not debate their detractors feel we should just do as they say.
In a recent article I read about the volcano in Iceland and its carbon foot print made me stop and realize the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by volcanos. How many are there that are active? Many I have found but they are mostly ignored because they don’t create a threat like the one in Iceland did shutting down air travel. Look at the active volcano in Hawaii that has been spewing for years. Makes me realize this carbon foot print craze is a couple of clicks above crazy.
That has been completely debunked. Quit throwing out false information, try doing some research on this stuff before spewing your ignorance:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
“tonnes” Paul? You wouldn’t be per chance from the University of East Anglia would you?
No response to your question, I see. Oops, I think you’ve nailed it!!
“Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change.”
While I absolutely believe no money should be spent on preventing human or otherwise caused climate change, and the more absolutely so because we have no understanding of the climate–objecting to this expenditure is the same as saying we should stay ignorant. I don’t hold with that.
The government should be doing some basic research about what affects our prosperity and security, the better to guard it. If nothing else, an understanding of the climate lets the military know better what to plan for, so I’d say it’s perfectly constitutional as well, a part of the defense mission.
“They received 3-4 times as much in federal subsidies, tax breaks, and other largesse than renewable energy folks — about $72B compared to about $29B from 2002-2008.”
Ususally, the people who claim this are watermelon environments who want the national gov’t to charge so much for mineral rights, that what it really means is–”they aren’t charging enough that the industries are shut down, so it’s a subsidy.”
IOW, prove it.
Thanks for the info. Hopefully, someone will fire the eco-nut James Hansen, chief ‘climate scientist’ at NASA who is calling on China to force the U.S. to reduce its carbon footprint, since (according to him) democracy doesn’t work. Why should our tax money promote anti-American rhetoric?
The author, and the commenters, miss the essential truth. He, they, and we do not bet the ranch, we bet the United States of America. There is a legitimate argument on the fairness of subsidies to the hydrocarbon oligopolies. And righteous anger at the oceans of money taken from Americans and given, without merit, for generations, to Texan oilmen. But that is not the central issue.
Having engineered a score of nukes, two score fossil plants, and ten years assessing advanced technology, I am certain of a few facts:
Without carbon combustion, the US will not survive. When? Dunno, certainly long before global warming projections becomes a problem, maybe the first third of this century.
The experts who can contribute, our engineering societies, are sitting it out. Our nation’s energy infrastructure is ancient, because the US government has blocked nuclear and coal fired power plants for so long that the engineering talent is dead, or traumatized due to lay offs. There are retired NRC engineers who worked a full career, regulating the engineering of new nukes, but never participated in one. If the NFL had not played on game in fifty years, why would they pay referees? Is this a subsidy? Our problem is engineering talent, and technology.
The green energy technologies share a common feature; they are all too expensive to support our energy needs, and despite the sales pitches, or a unknown breakthrough, will remain marginally useful through this century. Thus we use coal, uranium(I keep it simple) or go out of existence. The use of carbon combustion is an existential fact of life for our nation, and world. If global warming is real, man kind has no chance. Thus men will fight over the last dead rat.
Deal with it.
I think you should put some more initials after your name to show how important you are, because that also shows how intelligent you are. There are green technologies that are now competitive with coal, we just don’t have the infrastructure to get the power moved around the country. Solar power in the Southwest is viable. The cost of the power is fast approaching $1.00 per watt, competitive with Coal and blows Nuke out of the water. We need peak power capacity and storage systems. To do this, research is needed. The only way to fund research into something the fossil fuel industry doesn’t want is via taxes. This idea that burning fossil fuels (a finite resource) is the only way forward is short sighted. Maybe if those initials actually actually meant you knew something, Mr. Professional Engineer, you would post something intelligent rather than politically motivated.
‘..$1.00 per watt, competitive with coal..’ – You’re misinformed or a liar, Paul.
Electricity kWh averages:
12¢ to 50¢ (http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html
10¢ to 23¢ (http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html)
13¢ to 21¢ (http://www.xmediapartners.com/What_is_my_cost_per_kWh_of_electricity-qna10776.html)
Then again, it doesn’t help matters Paul that you use Reuters (I JUST read an article of a ‘Scientist’ using debunked ‘tree rings’ for the.. fall of Rome! hahahaha) for validity.
And like the typical Liberal/Gaia worshipper, besides providing erroneous information, you use personal ad hominems when losing your dog in the fight (re: your response to poster R. L. Hails Sr. P. E.)
Stay classy, Paul. More importantly, keep reading, regurgitating fiction for your emotionally-led causes and dogmas..
Solar price at $1.00 per watt is the cost of the infrastructure, not the retail cost to the consumer. Delivered cost to the consumer is now about $0.15 per watt, compared with the coal cost of about $0.10 per watt. These prices do not take into account externalities, such as the cost to a city in WV when they cut the top off the local mountain and pollute all the streams. The solar costs do not include the cost of disrupting large tracts of land and possibly hurting some animal. Those negative externalities should be accounted for, but in our present day and age, they are not. Finally, the big one, why is it OK to pollute our air? If you can explain why pollution is a long term benefit to society and our planet, you will win.
There are many places where you can reference renewable power price parity on the internet, I didn’t think I needed to do your research for you guys. Check this one: http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/grid+parity-renewables-coal/1013
Regarding the initials PE, a lot of Global Warming deniers use this to confuse the issue, I guess I get a little carried away, no disrespect intended.
As for Paul-unalaska – great post showing why renewables, particularly solar is such a great idea, look at your third link
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html
scroll down towards the bottom and see when peak load are. During the day at noon (best time for solar). Thank you for making my point that we need to invest in solar, while maintaining our base load capabilities. Nuclear power makes sense for this base load, coal does not.
Knock off the denier nonsense. Climate change happens all the time. It has been a fact for most of the 4.5 billion years the earth has been in existence. What we skeptics question is the apocalyptic vision put forth by the AGW theorists. Humans contribute about 3% of the total CO2 that enters the atmosphere each year the rest comes from natural sources.
BTW what is the role of CO2 in the environment Paul?
Here is a solar plant that is just going up now. the electricity it will produce will cost at least 50 cents /kWhr just to pay off the capital costs. (we pay 10 cents / kWhr retail)
Here is a solar plant that is just going up now. the electricity it will produce will cost at least 50 cents /kWhr just to pay off the capital costs. (we pay 10 cents / kWhr retail)
http://www.nofreewind.com/2010/08/pocono-raceway-solar-project.html
Secondly, how you have the stones to accuse ‘political motivation’ for the continued use of oil and coal, in essence stating the actions by the Fed, DoE and the other usurpers to the TRILLIONS of redistributive dollars worldwide have a ‘noble’ cause, in their mocking/making-up-as-they-go-along approach ‘science’..
Scary ‘thought’ process, Paul.
It is vital, for survival, to focus on facts, so I ignore ad hominem discussion of my name. The signature sits on tens of thousands of design documents, which were the basis of billions of dollars in decision making, construction and operation.
A key concept in investing in a new power plant is the transmission costs between the load, a city or large factory, and the generating plant. A large, cheap supply in a distant area will not attack funding. The first cost, the price, is rigorously defined at a point, typically the high voltage side of a main transformer, and is universally stated in thousands of dollars per megawatt electric, $/MWe. But more important is the life cycle cost of generation, and the guarantees backing the claim. If anyone is willing to guarantee delivered base loaded power at $1,000/ Mwe, he will receive billions in contracts and will go broke on the first one. (I discuss base load supply, our great need; flashlight batteries are not addressed.) There are trillions of dollars available if Paul’s statement was real. To state that this is based on needed research funding is a contradiction in the stated claim. This is termed an off ramp in the business, and would draw comments about you, from tough business men.
The US threw fortunes at synfuel energy in the Carter years, and wasted virtually all of it; the government funded R&D plants shut down on the hour the subsidies ran out. There are many people who will take free money, and promise anything,”science… R&D…research” on the sole condition that it is not their money.
Americans have centuries of carbon and uranium fuel beneath our feet, but I see not way to survive if we do not use them quickly. We are running out of time, and experts. I have studied advanced technologies: superconductivity, ultracapacitors, rare earth magnets, silicon carbide switches, tribology, and nanotechnology, are a few, but am not political. My sole interest is the continued survival of my country. I would delight if technical peers (folks who built something that worked) rebutted my position, but their silence is deafening. Has anyone watched the pros in IEEE, ASME, or ASCE, on national TV, debating a viable energy policy for this nation? I assure you, they are extremely intelligent.
My apologies to all; I am a lousy typist, particularly when the phone rings. The first cost of any power plant is stated in $1,000 K/WMe (or $1,000/KWe). Example: A 1,000 MWe plant, a big nuke, might cost $ 1 Bn.
I have built them for less; today they might cost $10 Bn. The cost, both first cost and operating, are ~ 95% controlled by government regulations, “the devil is in the details.” If coal plants are burdened with global warming externality costs, they will never be built. The clean up technologies are hideously expensive. The EPA is shutting down 70,000 WMe of these plants for this reason, so we either will do without, or see massive unsustainable increases in our electricity bills. Nothing, other than food is more basic to our standard of living.
The US does not have a survivable energy policy, and it will reach a crisis some time soon.
true …at least in zimbabwe they don’t freeze to death. but that will not be the case when people realize they have made their own zimbabwe right here in north america
welcome to africa
R.L. As one “challanged typist” to amother…GREAT POSTS!
He declares without any evidence…
silly rabbit ..solar and wind power do not even meet the cost of their own installation and production.
wind power does not recoup the cost of putting them up the turbines at todays free market prices. and solar is wery similar.
…but hey it isn’t your fault you aren’t aware of that. it is societies fault.. learn to be a critical thinker. if you can so you can actually come to your own conclusion instead of repeating what you hear in the news.
Solar power is next to useless where I live, and wind power is too intermittent, and hardly has a fraction of the required capacity needed. So your argument may be good for a desert community, but I’d rather live where there is an abundance of clean water.
Your reasoning is off in the following statement:
“In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.”
If, in the absence of mankind, the biosphere releases x tons of CO_2 into the atmosphere each year and then reabsorbs y tons, then the human component of net increase should be 3x/(3x + 100x -100y). In particular, it would be 100% if the system were in equilibrium without human activity.
Any Republican who shouts those figures at Obumbles’ face in every presidential debate will win. “Ten million dollars of YOUR MONEY EVERY DAY, folks.” Oop, did I say “folks”? Wonder who that would be?
A lot was commented about oil company subsidies and all I could think of is who does not have abundant oil to use. Third world countries.
The oil industry has much to contribute to America’s energy needs — particularly in light of rising gas prices. The American Petroleum Institute, in its “State of American Energy” report, estimated the industry supports more than $1 trillion in annual contributions to the U.S. economy. Creating additional access to areas currently closed to development would lead to even more domestic production, new jobs and billions in government revenue.
Yet the administration’s actions are having the opposite effect: The lack of exploration and production means fewer jobs for out-of-work Americans and less money flowing into federal coffers.
——————————–
Let’s see. Someone proclaims, say 70 billion a year in subsidies with a return of 1 trillion to the American economy. Seems like tax dollars well spent.
You Liberalists( and you know who you are ) should realize our President isn’t here to help us,but to destroy us and build a one world government.
How often do you have to get hit on the head before you say ‘ouch.’ Or before you even say ‘stop hitting me on the head’? For climate deniers, probably forever. We can expect them to talk about how cold the winter is, here or there. But for the rest of us, enough should be enough. The planet has a fever and it’s getting worse.
We’re killing our life support system!!!
HTH, I never met anybody who denied there is a climate. Where are there such people? Oh, you meant people who distrust the conclusions of those who have rigged data and disgraced the very science of climatology, if climatology, which is failing to make accurate predictions, can be called a science at all.
Maybe the fever IS getting worse–I’ve noticed my state suffering from distinct chills lately (they’re called, ironically enough, “algors”). Hmm, I think that in the progression of a fever, the chills come shortly before the recovery period. Keep your fingers crossed, Mr. Hugger; I know you’d be thrilled if The World’s Most Knowledgeable Scientists announced that the fever has ended.
Unless, of course, they then announced that we’re now headed for a New Ice Age, just as we were 40 years ago. Climate change indeed!
Polly, I’ve taken quite a likens to ya. You might be interested to know that, just as there are degrees Kelvin, there are degrees Algore. A degree Algore is a degree F. over 125 Degs F. (which will soon be the average temperature of Chicago’s lakefront in April). So 127 degs F. is also 2 Degs A.
Hot hot hot.
I figure you are about 30 Degs A.
Al..?
Hey, buddy, sorry to hear about you and Tipper.
On a lighter note, when are you, or the ‘India’s-Science-guru-exiled Pachauri’, ‘Hockey stick/UVA sealed, though 1st reported ‘lost’ records even with 2 FOIA requests’ Mann or your other IPCC brethren going to debate scientists who truly respect the scientific method.. I mean, those on the other side of the aisle?
Your ‘science’ should make it a quick discussion, really. Cause I loves me some o’ dat, cherry picked, smoothed over data! Mmm mmm mmm!
So what are you personally doing to stop that fever you so fervently believe in. How about links to pictures that show you no longer suck on the teat of big energy. Pictures of your house disconnected from the grid (electric, gas and oil) Do you walk or bicycle work. Do you grow all your own food organically. Use of commercial fertilizers is verboten since they need big energy to be produced. Otherwise you are just a big hypocrite who likes to hear his/her own voice. Please stop torturing the electrons produced by big energy.
To Hippie Tree Hugger, the earths climate as been changing from day one. There was life on the earth before man and there will be life after man. One major volcano eruption buts more debris into our atmosphere than man can now do or ever in our history. You want to control our C02 emissions, first you would have to get everyone on earth to stop emitting C02. Hippie what man puts into the air would not change anything. You see Hippie you and Obama were not around when most of the people burned coal or wood without caching the smoke. Same way industry use to burn a lot more coal! They did not have scrubbers to help the exhaust from the chimneys.
Hippie it is time to change your bong water!
“Then, this statement: “further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption.” The implication is that there has already been widespread climate disruption — there has not. There is no more extreme weather going on now than anytime in the last 2,000 years. Per the complex Orwellian world of government-speak, we have now moved on from “global warming” to “climate change” to “climate disruption.” Climate change wasn’t frightening enough! What’s next? My money’s on “climate disintegration” — that should keep the money flowing so we can figure out who and what will be disintegrated.”
This is not government-speak, it is an attempt at accuracy. “Global warming” is inaccurate because human-caused climate change doesn’t necessarily lead to warming everywhere; over the short term certain areas will become cooler.
“Climate change” is inaccurate because it is too general: as you pointed out, some climate change happens naturally. Therefore, “Climate disruption” is used to talk about human-caused climate change outside the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet.
Just in general: have you done any research on this stuff at all? Because a lot of stuff that you’ve mentioned here has been addressed again and again and again by scientists. I am honestly a little bewildered by people that insist on denying climate disruption, especially when you seem so ANGRY about it. Do you really think this is all a big scam by the scientific establishment?
“Therefore, “Climate disruption” is used to talk about human-caused climate change outside the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet.”
Ah yes. The word disruption implies there are people who intentionally or selfishly disrupt the climate. Jolly good, jolly good. But personally I prefer ‘climate assassination’. It has a lot more blameful oomph attached to it. These devils, who don’t want to give others their money in order to stave off the risings of the seas and…and desert-makings of the forests until they see some untainted evidence, are just so many, so many mountebanks, what what.
Why, they know no more about the scientific method than a pig knows about La Musee des Baux Arts. A scientist tells you something, you’d damn well better believe it. That’s the core of the scientific method. Nihil obstat.
It has been obvious to the objective observer for some time that the anthrogenic global warming hypothesis is false. So why the persistence in believing it. Money in the form of research grants has much to do with it. Also is the reluctance,now a psychotic reluctance, to admit that hated conservatives were right and the liberal establishment wrong. Further, might the conservatives be also right about environmentalist claims in general and also other liberal dogma like the Darwinian hypothesis?
So Lefties are not just going to crawl away in defeat but we must force them to and NEVER let them forget how wrong they were on the global warming issue.
Richard,
I agree fully. Unfortunately there is no truth obvious enough, and no shame great enough, to discourage the socialist left’s desire to destroy our capitalist economic system in favor of their Utopian “nanny state” dream.
A little light reading for our friends of the librul faith:
http://www.americansolutions.com/drill/2011/01/top-five-things-obama-has-done-to-raise-gasoline-prices.php
Fred,
Brian Sussmann’s “Climategate” is a good read as well.
Thanks, wayne.
Check out Wattsupwiththat.com and see that the NSF is funding a grant to retrain broadcast meteorologists so that they can find global warming in local weather events. It has a component based on cognitive dissonance theory for reluctant meteorologists.
Andy, I’m not trying to be obtuse, but are you serious?
Mr. Horn is not displaying ‘anger’, far from it. More so a disbelief, disappointment of the scientific method being trampled by the ‘scientists’ you prop on your shoulders for chicken little-like nonsense.
Mr. Horn dedicating 25 years to the meteorological field and continuing his experience, interest is evident.
Your, ‘..have you done any research..’ quip is redundant. And shows just how little you have questioned the findings you hold so dear.
BTW, THANK YOU for proving Mr. Horn’s point in your using ‘climate disruption’ in your post.. hahahaha
‘Hello foot, sure there’s room in my mouth’
Here’s a real scientist on “scientists”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw&feature=related
Nuclear cost per kilowatt hour:
“estimated at 5.93 cents per kW·h.” – U.S. government report, 2006
“estimated 5.2 cents per kilowatt hour” – MIT, 2003
“between 5.1 cents and 8.3 cents” – Nuclear Energy Information Service
“averaging 2.03 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2009″ – Nuclear Energy Institute
Let us thank Liberals for the following:
1. Opposing the most efficient, cheapest, and practically unlimited power source for generations.
2. Taking this stance despite all scientific evidence, and the fact that no one has ever died in the US from nuclear power.
3. Causing worldwide dependency on Arab oil for the last two generations.
4. Hampering the adoption of electric vehicles for decades due to lack of inexpensive electricity.
5. Resulting smog, particulates and cancer.
6. Oil tanker spills and drilling accidents like Deepwater Horizon, due to legislation preventing drilling on US land.
7. Coal mining and distribution accidents and disease
Lastly, if Global Warming existed, nuclear power would have of course prevented it at the outset.
Liberals: On the side of science and the planet.
I believe it was last year that Soros bought a big chunk of Petrobas, the Brazilian government oil company. Also, there was some US taxpayer money that the Obama regime shoveled into Brazilian offshore oil exploration right around the same time. Coincidence? Quid pro quo? I don’t know; The Dems are probably exceedingly grateful to the great billionaire, philanthropist, humanitarian for setting his NGO dogs on any conservative or Republican that shows a spark of opposition to the leftist takeover of the republic.
Here is a big drawback to windmills especially in colder climes.
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/12/irony-scotland-wind-turbines-freeze.html
We should not be squandering money on climate change. When the planet goes belly up I want to be there see the bankers standing on their their wads of cash looking for somewhere to stick it.
“By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.”
Really? You want to stop climate change research based on horrible logic such as this? You can’t compare the percentage of the total CO2 budget to the % of the increase in CO2. This is pretty basic stuff.
When you actually compare the increase in CO2 you find that humans are responsible for 100%, as confirmed by isotope analysis and other lines of evidence.
Boris, cork it. The isotope studies don’t prove anything other than that the extra molecules are of anthropogenic origin. They don’t prove anything about what mechanism determines the actual concentration. Go take a course on chemical thermodynamics, and them come back and talk about the hard stuff.
Please don’t embarrass yourself by posting on subjects you know nothing about. The isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 show that the source is plant life and not geological.
I simply have to ask: Wouldn’t it be less expensive to plant trees? Where’s the neo-environmentalists when it comes to actual SOLUTIONS?
By the way, if true and the planet were to eventually heat up and kill us all, would these same folks just step up and tell everyone honestly exactly which populations they’d prefer starve to death? Through their own hyper-hysteria, that’s really what they’re promoting – genocide. Shall we stop feeding the world now so we can stave off a non-existant crisis?
I’ll be in the group that prefers to go down burning before I deliberately “kill off” those hungry, needy people, so fund THAT.
Tell that to the 3rd worlders.
Excellent site, excellent posts! First time here & love it! Usually hang out at watt’s site but I find your posters contributions bloody excellent(sorry aussie trait).
The sooner governments spot spending money on a NON problem the better. Just hope the people os USA can do this, as we in Oz are fighting the same crap.
I too frequent wattsup.. EXCELLENT site.
I’ve a friend in West Oz and he doesn’t understand how his country’s Government is trying to push the AGW agenda when MOST of Oz is desert!
pajamasmedia is great. The ‘pjtv.com’ portion is superb too if you get a chance.
hotair.com, scrappleface.com are engaging as well.
I’m still trying to understand NOAA’s claim since July that 2010 is the hottest year on record. They should be forced to only cite satellite data when gauging the earth’s temperature, as if the exercise has any intrinsic value anyway, since we are now into the disruption phase of this theory.
They waste more than that on the chemtrails to hide Planet X, which is the reason for everything. Every government on earth are complete treasonous criminals.
If AGW has been proven and is now a matter of fact, why do we continue to spend taxpayer money on continuing to prove the proven? If these scientists are so convinced of their results and there is a true consensus amongst them, then why must we continue to pour money into their research? They won! They shouldn’t need anymore money to continue making their point!
If there’s no inflation, why are they asking for more money??? And can anyone say “duplication of services”?
Make no mistake – when they say “climate change” or “climate disruption” they mean “global warming” and “global” warming is an oxymoron: only 1/2 of the planet is “warming” at any given time – while the other half is undergoing the frigid temps that come with hemispheric cooling. “Global” warming is a physical impossibility.
James Hansen looks to totalitarian China to save the planet.
China where diversion of rivers has dessicated the countryside, where entire water systems have been carelessly poisoned, where, just prior to the Olympics, the Chinese were desperately trying to clear the algae bloom so water events could take place.
China, where a coal fired plant is built almost every other day. China which not all that long ago reportedly had 7 of the world’s 10 most polluted cities.
But apparently China’s getting that fee and dividend system down pat, aka carbon credits…
So Hansen is feeling all warm and fuzzy
The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism.Hence it follows that,just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism,so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism.
(A Program for the Jews and Humanity,Rabbi Harry Waton,p.143-144)
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia.We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America
(The Jew,December 1925,Zinobit)
This book detail their plan for America,it is free on internet
Who Is Esau-Edom
whoah this blog is wonderful i really like studying your posts. Keep up the good paintings! You recognize, a lot of people are hunting round for this info, you can aid them greatly.