Quick,...

[Yonivore]

...what do a German Professor named Fritz Vahrenholt and former U.S. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper have in common?

[Spurminator]

Are they Crackers for Cain?

[Yonivore]

Are they Crackers for Cain?
Nope.

[baseline bum]

Obama got them an ipod?

[ChumpDumper]

They both saw the real Kenyan birth certificate?

[Cry Havoc]

I can't handle an ellipsis following a comma. Too much of a pause, TBH.

[ElNono]

They don't start threads with ellipses?

[Winehole23]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-kathy-dahlkemper-i-wouldnt-have-voted-obamacare-if-id-known-about-hhs-regulation_626302.html

[Yonivore]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-kathy-dahlkemper-i-wouldnt-have-voted-obamacare-if-id-known-about-hhs-regulation_626302.html
And, how does that make her similar to the German Professor?

[boutons_deux]

WGAF about paranoid Yoni's yet-another rat turd?

[Yonivore]

Just checking to see if this place was still void of serious debate.

Check.

[Yonivore]

Okay, I'll help y'all out:

From Melanie Phillips (http://melaniephillips.com/the-compelling-case-against-ed-davey)


As the Global Warming Policy Foundation reports a new book, Die Kalte Sonne, written by Prof Dr Fritz Vahrenholt and geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, has caused a sensation even in advance of its official publication yesterday. For Prof. Vahrenholt, a renewable energy expert, was one of the fathers of the modern German green movement and believed everything preached by the IPCC. But according to Focus magazine, he is now a far sadder and wiser man:


‘Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”

‘In his book he explains how he dug into the IPCC climate report and was horrified by what he had found. Then add the 10 years of stagnant temperatures, failed predictions, Climategate e-mails, and discussions he had with dozens of other skeptical elite scientists. That was more than enough. FOCUS quotes: “I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”’

And, Winehole helpfully linked to a story that illuminates the similarity between the Congresswoman and the Professor.

Discuss...

[JoeChalupa]

Millions of people have something in common with U.S. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper as they share the same view as she does when it comes to the issue of Catholic Hospitals and Colleges and contraception. That is not big news.

[RandomGuy]

You know I was just saying to myself that my life was missing more mindless conservative polemics.

Thank God for Yonivore. The universe is talking to me.




Too bad the universe seems to be a dick.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, I'll help y'all out:

From Melanie Phillips (http://melaniephillips.com/the-compelling-case-against-ed-davey)



And, Winehole helpfully linked to a story that illuminates the similarity between the Congresswoman and the Professor.

Discuss...

"other skeptical elite scientists"


You know they are elite scientists because the blog says so. Thanks for clearing that up.

[RandomGuy]

Just checking to see if this place was still void of serious debate.

Check.

You would be more compelling if you can tell me exactly how the economy will be harmed by reducing CO2 emissions, and could do so using sound economic principles.

You can't do that, can you?

[boutons_deux]

Yoni shill still trashing the IPCC report, doing the whored bidding of the UCA and oilcos.

[RandomGuy]

You would be more compelling if you can tell me exactly how the economy will be harmed by reducing CO2 emissions, and could do so using sound economic principles.

You can't do that, can you?

All kidding aside,

One has to wonder at true motive, when a complaint about a lack of serious discussion, when met by an attempt at serious discussion, does not get a response.

[RandomGuy]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
RandomGuy, Yonivore

I seeeeee youuuuuu.

[Spurminator]

Okay, I'll help y'all out:

From Melanie Phillips (http://melaniephillips.com/the-compelling-case-against-ed-davey)



And, Winehole helpfully linked to a story that illuminates the similarity between the Congresswoman and the Professor.

Discuss...


ts;dr

[George Gervin's Afro]

You would be more compelling if you can tell me exactly how the economy will be harmed by reducing CO2 emissions, and could do so using sound economic principles.

You can't do that, can you?

:sleep

[Yonivore]

You would be more compelling if you can tell me exactly how the economy will be harmed by reducing CO2 emissions, and could do so using sound economic principles.

You can't do that, can you?
Cap and Trade.
Solyndra.
Draconian retrofitting costs shutting down coal-fueled power plants.
UN Sponsored global warming initiative into which we pour money.
Loss of jobs by restricting drilling.
Keystone pipeline.

The list is long on how government is driving a stake in the heart of our national economy in the name of reducing greenhouse gases.

Pursuing inefficient and non-viable alternative energy sources is probably the biggest boondoggle but, there are other policies, enacted in the name of reducing CO2, that are just plain putting other people out of business.

And, RG, being logged into a forum does not mean someone is sitting in front of the screen looking at it.

[Yonivore]

But, again, not the point of the thread.

What do the two people mentioned in the OP have in common?

[baseline bum]

Just checking to see if this place was still void of serious debate.

Check.

Like about ipods and birth certificates?

[Winehole23]

But, again, not the point of the thread.

What do the two people mentioned in the OP have in common? true believers, disillusioned?

[Yonivore]

true believers, disillusioned?
True believers? Not exactly... Both were in the circle of professionals that pushed the liberal dogma to which they became devoted. The had access to the information that would have never allowed them to be duped -- but, out of a religious devotion and zealotry for the "progressive pap" being spewed about the respective subjects over which they wielded some modicum of influence, they mindlessly perpetuated the lies.

They don't have the luxury of being "disillusioned." They are useful idiots who were willing to sell their souls, ignore all evidence contrary to their narratives, to advance a cause that has less to do with environmentalism/healthcare than government control.

[Winehole23]

No credit for speaking out now? They're still dupes in your mind, even though you're propping yourself up on them?

[ChumpDumper]

lol serious debate

[FromWayDowntown]

Mike Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Powell_%28athlete%29) is impressed with that leap.

[ElNono]

lol serious debate

[RandomGuy]

Cap and Trade.
Solyndra.
Draconian retrofitting costs shutting down coal-fueled power plants.
UN Sponsored global warming initiative into which we pour money.
Loss of jobs by restricting drilling.
Keystone pipeline.

The list is long on how government is driving a stake in the heart of our national economy in the name of reducing greenhouse gases.

Pursuing inefficient and non-viable alternative energy sources is probably the biggest boondoggle but, there are other policies, enacted in the name of reducing CO2, that are just plain putting other people out of business.

And, RG, being logged into a forum does not mean someone is sitting in front of the screen looking at it.

As for being logged in: Fair enough and sorry for the implication you were ignoring it because you weren't interested in serious conversation.


A laundry list of things you don't like and outrages-du-jour is not really any kind of quantification of the effects on the economy from cutting CO2 emissions.

Public policies always have costs and benefits, and these can be measured or estimated.

If one considers one side of the equation without considering the other side, that does not make for good decisions.

Is that what you want us to do when it comes to regulating or not regulating CO2?

[RandomGuy]

They are useful idiots who were willing to sell their souls, ignore all evidence contrary to their narratives, to advance a cause


You have little room to criticize anyone for this, given the fact that I cannot remember you demonstrating the intellectual honesty required to admit weaknesses in any narrative you are attempting to advance.

I have occasionally, if memory serves, seen you have the humility required to admit factual mistakes, but never once can I remember you admitting that anything you believe in or assert is less than ironclad fact.

[ElNono]

Cracker for Cain!

[Yonivore]

You have little room to criticize anyone for this, given the fact that I cannot remember you demonstrating the intellectual honesty required to admit weaknesses in any narrative you are attempting to advance.
Your failure to note an example notwithstanding, I'm not a voting member of Congress whose "yea" vote was THE crucial vote to push that piece of crap "we've-got-to-pass-it-to-know-what's-in-it" ObamaCare legislation through to a patsy Senate and I'm not a prestigious professor charged with reviewing IPCC global warming documents who failed to engage critical thinking for approximately a decade before realizing "Oh Shit! This is a bunch of bullshit," so, my intransigence on any point is pretty meaningless.

Theirs' on the other hand, has been consequential.


I have occasionally, if memory serves, seen you have the humility required to admit factual mistakes, but never once can I remember you admitting that anything you believe in or assert is less than ironclad fact.
Such as?

[ChumpDumper]

He's here to debate seriously!

[Wild Cobra]

Cracker for Cain!

Stop showing your racist tenancies please.

[RandomGuy]

Your failure to note an example notwithstanding, I'm not a voting member of Congress whose "yea" vote was THE crucial vote to push that piece of crap "we've-got-to-pass-it-to-know-what's-in-it" ObamaCare legislation through to a patsy Senate and I'm not a prestigious professor charged with reviewing IPCC global warming documents who failed to engage critical thinking for approximately a decade before realizing "Oh Shit! This is a bunch of bullshit," so, my intransigence on any point is pretty meaningless.

Theirs' on the other hand, has been consequential.


Such as?
That didn't really answer my question.

Do you think costs AND benefits should be considered when setting public policy? A simple yes or no will do.

[ChumpDumper]

Stop showing your racist tenancies please.That's what yoni called himself tbh.

[clambake]

Stop showing your racist tenancies please.

yoni called himself a cracker for cain, dumbass

[ElNono]

Stop showing your racist tenancies please.

I was quoting Yoni.

What's a racist tenancy? Some land owned by racists?

[Wild Cobra]

I was quoting Yoni.

What's a racist tenancy? Some land owned by racists?
But he's white. He can say it. You aren't. You aren't allowed to.

[ChumpDumper]

But he's white. He can say it. You aren't. You aren't allowed to.He's a cracker for Cain!

[ElNono]

But he's white. He can say it. You aren't. You aren't allowed to.

I'm not allowed to quote him? Says who?

What's a racist tenancy?

[Yonivore]

As for being logged in: Fair enough and sorry for the implication you were ignoring it because you weren't interested in serious conversation.


A laundry list of things you don't like and outrages-du-jour is not really any kind of quantification of the effects on the economy from cutting CO2 emissions.

Public policies always have costs and benefits, and these can be measured or estimated.

If one considers one side of the equation without considering the other side, that does not make for good decisions.

Is that what you want us to do when it comes to regulating or not regulating CO2?
Coal and petroleum are effective, efficient, and readily available fuels. Trying to shift to ineffective, inefficient, and unreliable "renewable" energy schemes for the sake of reducing CO2, cannot be good for the economy.

Coal plants are shutting down because they cannot meet draconian regulations designed to force them out of business; pipeline jobs evaporate and the oil it would have delivered is shipped to the coast of Canada on Warren Buffet rails to be sold to the Chinese; Gulf drilling rigs are floated off to friendlier waters while other countries continue to drill and pump oil out of the gulf; hell, the fucking EPA has designated our exhalation, a gas crucial for photosynthesis and the production of Oxygen, the stuff we inhale, a toxin to be controlled and reduced -- based on what is turning out to be a farce.

How expensive do you think that's going to turn out to be?

Meanwhile, our government literally pours money down renewable energy schemes that don't seem to be producing any meaningful results except for lining the pockets of executives that have questionable ties to the administration that gave them the money they squandered.

[ChumpDumper]

lol draconian

People like breathing. It's a fact.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not allowed to quote him? Says who?

What's a racist tenancy?
That is I were to quote someone saying the "N" word without putting it in context?

[ElNono]

That is I were to quote someone saying the "N" word without putting it in context?

It's a thread started by Yoni... Seeing you had no idea what I was talking about, the least you could've done is ask about the context...

What's a racist tenancy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But he's white. He can say it. You aren't. You aren't allowed to.

Dear lord just when i think you cannot say anything more inane and classless.

[clambake]

What's a racist tenancy?

i would tell you, but i'm not sure of the color of your skin.

[RandomGuy]

Coal and petroleum are effective, efficient, and readily available fuels. Trying to shift to ineffective, inefficient, and unreliable "renewable" energy schemes for the sake of reducing CO2, cannot be good for the economy.

Coal plants are shutting down because they cannot meet draconian regulations designed to force them out of business; pipeline jobs evaporate and the oil it would have delivered is shipped to the coast of Canada on Warren Buffet rails to be sold to the Chinese; Gulf drilling rigs are floated off to friendlier waters while other countries continue to drill and pump oil out of the gulf; hell, the fucking EPA has designated our exhalation, a gas crucial for photosynthesis and the production of Oxygen, the stuff we inhale, a toxin to be controlled and reduced -- based on what is turning out to be a farce.

How expensive do you think that's going to turn out to be?

Meanwhile, our government literally pours money down renewable energy schemes that don't seem to be producing any meaningful results except for lining the pockets of executives that have questionable ties to the administration that gave them the money they squandered.

That doesn't really answer my simple question, yet again.
If you aren't going to answer it can you at least have the courtesy to say so?

[Yonivore]

That doesn't really answer my simple question, yet again.
If you aren't going to answer it can you at least have the courtesy to say so?
Yes, and it's becoming increasingly apparent the cost of reducing CO2 far outweighs any benefit to be be gained.

In fact, there's little evidence CO2 is causing any harm at all.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, [I do think costs and benefits should be weighed when considering public policy], and it's becoming increasingly apparent the cost of reducing CO2 far outweighs any benefit to be be gained.

In fact, there's little evidence CO2 is causing any harm at all.

If it is increasingly apparent, one should be able to quantify both the costs and benefits.

One of your main concerns is "ineffective, inefficient, and unreliable renewable energy".

One of the fundamental principles of finance and free markets is risk= return.

New renewable projects for wind and solar tend to get lower finance/loan rates than conventional fossil fuel plants. Those involved in the process don't cite the reason as being government subsidies, or regulation.

Can you tell me the reason for this economic reality? What would make someone involved in loaning billions of dollars think that renewables are less risky?

[RandomGuy]

‘Proven recoverable reserves’ are estimates of the national coal resources that geologists believe are technically and economically feasible to mine. New mining technology and higher coal prices could, in principle, increase the size of those reserves. But the overwhelming global trend, as revealed by national coal surveys over the past few decades, is for the size of countries’ estimated reserves to shrink as geologists uncover restrictions — such as location, depth, seam thickness and quality — on the coal that can be practically extracted.

The first British coal survey, in the nineteenth century, suggested that the nation had enough coal to last 900 years. The current reserves lifetime is only 12 years, and the British coal industry is a tiny fraction of its former size.

Similarly, the first official US coal survey, in the early twentieth century, suggested that the country had enough coal for 5,000 years. That estimate shrank to about 400 years in 1974 and stands at 240 years today. ..., in aggregate, estimates of global coal reserves have dropped at a faster rate in recent years than can be accounted for by mining alone.


...


Applying Hubbert analysis to coal, Chinese academics Tao and Li forecast in 2007 that China’s production will peak and begin to decline long before the simple 62-years estimate, perhaps as early as 2025. During and after the period when production peaks, resource quality will dwindle and mining costs will rise, pushing up coal prices, as is already beginning to happen with Asia-Pacific coal.

...


The current price of more than US$80 per barrel [for oil] is about three times higher than the upper range in official forecasts for 2010 that were being issued in the late 1990s.


...

Coal consumption is accelerating fast, notably in China (see graphic). This renders meaningless reserves-lifetime figures calculated on the basis of flat demand. A 2009 report from China’s Energy Research Institute forecast that coal demand would rise by 700 million to 1 billion tonnes by 2020, reducing the reserves lifetime to about 33 years. If coal demand grows in step with projected Chinese economic growth, the reserves lifetime would drop to just 19 years.

---------------------------

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Why-Coal-Prices-Will-Soar-in-the-Coming-Years.html


Renewables do not face fuel depletion.

Coal is not something we can, like oil, find and extract from the bottom of the ocean.

The people whose job it is to evaluate the riskiness of loans have factored in the increased risks posed by fuel costs during the loan payback period.

Coal prices have, from what I can gather from the EIA's excel tables risen by about 5% per year for the last decade.


Given the Chinese are building two new coal fired plants every week, and are projected to do this for years, their pace of increasing coal consumption by 3.6% per year looks to also be sustained, even if their economy slows down from it recent torrid growth.

Yoni, what does near-term decreasing supply and increased demand for coal do to your assessment of how inefficient renewables are compared to fossil fuels?