Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

[spiderman]

Originally Posted by icarus

Found Naknek with out having to look it up on Google yet?

Easy,,, southwest Alaska.

[icarus]

Easy for you perhaps, aparentlly not so easy for RP in another thread!

[radioprius1]

Here's an interesting article:

NCAR’s dirty little secret Watts Up With That?

It's about NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) building a new supercomputer for predicting outcomes of atmospheric and related sciences. The article goes into depth on the energy consumption of this computer. It will be 30 times stronger than anything we currently have, it's on the order of the processing power of 100,000 PCs. Pretty impressive. Pretty impressive energy consumption too!

Too bad, that no matter what, garbage in = garbage out.

[NevadaPrius]

Originally Posted by radioprius1

Here's an interesting article:

NCAR’s dirty little secret Watts Up With That?

It's about NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) building a new supercomputer for predicting outcomes of atmospheric and related sciences. The article goes into depth on the energy consumption of this computer. It will be 30 times stronger than anything we currently have, it's on the order of the processing power of 100,000 PCs. Pretty impressive. Pretty impressive energy consumption too!

Too bad, that no matter what, garbage in = garbage out.

There's some interesting comments on the post at WUWT!

[NevadaPrius]

YouTube - Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

YouTube - Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

[ufourya]

Junior Member

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 2
My Car: 2008 Prius
Model: N/A
Package: N/A
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post



Friends: 0

Originally Posted by Organik

Well, from this thread and so many others around the interwebs, I've pretty much decided we ARE going to argue ourselves to death.

Regardless of what you think about global warming, do you think:

Generating green jobs is bad?
Having clean air is bad?
Having abundant clean energy is bad?

Just a thought.

Also, follow the money. Some folks seem to be desperately clinging to outdated business models and technology, by any means necessary.

Carry on.

Somehow I think two whole posts doesn't put you in much danger of arguing yourself to death.

Those ignorant of economics don't appreciate what creating 'green jobs' really costs. Any time government interjects itself into free markets via subsidies, etc., the odds are overwhelming that something WILL go wrong and the costs will be greater than doing nothing. Indeed, positive HARM is more often the result than not.
Spain is often put forward as an example of successful implementation of 'green' jobs and energy. Here's the reality:
Green Job Destruction: The Spain Study (Netting to negative via government) — MasterResource

That’s why this study, from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain should be kept handy (the report is in English).
After examining Spain’s experience with an aggressive wind-power program, the researchers concluded:

1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “green jobs” schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs. The question that this paper answers is “at what price?”

2. Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, the Spanish experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

3. Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. could lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals a tendency that means the U.S. should expect such an outcome.

The study has other fascinating facts, including the cost of creating a green job (571,000 Euros each!), and how many jobs are lost in the economy as a result of putting on more renewable power.

Opposing government intervention for the purpose of 'generating green jobs' does not mean that one doesn't want clean air, clean water, or clean energy.

I'm sure that one day remewable energy will prove to be efficient, reliable and cost effective. That will evolve, it should not be forced or coerced. There is no reason to force it.

By the way, CO2 is a harmless, even positively beneficial gas, regardless what the EPA, IPCC or the Supreme Court say. It is not pollution just because some hoaxers say it is.

It's a good thing CO2 is harmless, because here is what has happened in Spain since thay implemented their job-killing green revolution.



Good job!

[radioprius1]

How dare you post facts and data!!

[hyo silver]

Originally Posted by ufourya

...Those ignorant of economics don't appreciate what creating 'green jobs' really costs. Any time government interjects itself into free markets via subsidies, etc., the odds are overwhelming that something WILL go wrong and the costs will be greater than doing nothing. Indeed, positive HARM is more often the result than not...

What do you think of all the subsidies given to the oil industry? By your reasoning, tax writeoffs for exploration would be...'positively HARM' -ful, wouldn't they? You're right, we should end those, and petroleum products should be priced at their true, full cost. If you genuinely understood economics, you'd see that renewable energy already IS cheaper in the long run.

[dg1014]

Originally Posted by hyo silver

What do you think of all the subsidies given to the oil industry? By your reasoning, tax writeoffs for exploration would be...'positively HARM' -ful, wouldn't they? You're right, we should end those, and petroleum products should be priced at their true, full cost. If you genuinely understood economics, you'd see that renewable energy already IS cheaper in the long run.

You do realize there is a major difference between a tax write off and a direct subsidy dont you?

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by hyo silver

What do you think of all the subsidies given to the oil industry? By your reasoning, tax writeoffs for exploration would be...'positively HARM' -ful, wouldn't they? You're right, we should end those, and petroleum products should be priced at their true, full cost. If you genuinely understood economics, you'd see that renewable energy already IS cheaper in the long run.

I personally do not believe that government should subsidize ANY industry.

However, if subsidies do exist, they will do less harm if they support efficient rather than inefficient energy producing sources.

Your assertion that 'renewable energy already IS cheaper in the long run' is confusing in both syntax and meaning. But if I catch your meaning, it is also entirely wrong.

Here's why, Tonto:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_b..._subsidies.cfm