Green ‘drivel’ exposed

[FirefightnRick]

"The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria"

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

..."Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary...."

..."(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it......"

Rick

[Greenrex]

And?

[GreenMachine]

I don't understand the -1,s he is receiving. Do you not like FFR or the content of the article?

[adman]

"Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect."

[SilverEagle]

I'm just wondering if this is about someone's on-going dislike for Al Gore, or someone's dislike for cleaner air.....regardless of the cost. Because as a grandfather of two grandchildren, I applaud any attempt to provide my grandchildren with cleaner air.

I'm soooo sorry that advocating cleaner air is more repugnant than a politician that falsely spent American lives and treasure over a false war.

AND, if wind energy is so inefficient why are the Germans up there in the top three countries of the world using it. I can't think of a more educated and efficient country than Germany. If it had no value, they would not have invested so much into it.

[meangreendork]

In short, "our earlier predictions are wrong, and some of the green energy tech isn't ready to go full scale, but we should still be taking care of our planet."

All this aside, it's still not an excuse to take a giant dump on the planet. It's like getting a car from your parents - if you take care of it, it'll take care of you. Also, I'm all about switching to Thorium as a basis for electric power.

Edited June 24, 2012 by meangreendork

[Monkeypox]

I'm just wondering if this is about someone's on-going dislike for Al Gore, or someone's dislike for cleaner air.....regardless of the cost. Because as a grandfather of two grandchildren, I applaud any attempt to provide my grandchildren with cleaner air.

I'm soooo sorry that advocating cleaner air is more repugnant than a politician that falsely spent American lives and treasure over a false war.

AND, if wind energy is so inefficient why are the Germans up there in the top three countries of the world using it. I can't think of a more educated and efficient country than Germany. If it had no value, they would not have invested so much into it.

Haven't the Germans adopted a policy to completely phase out nuclear power while also adopting policies to reduce carbon emissions? Also, I don't think you should ignore that Germany imports a significant amount of Russian gas, possibly the most import-dependent country in Europe. And they're building even more pipelines from Russia, so I don't think, when it comes to energy development, one should regard Germany as particularly efficient.

Now, you also have to consider that massive delays in Germany's offshore wind farms program have resulted in them having diesel-operated generators out in the North Sea now for months (years?). And just recently, they've admitted that further delays in building infrastructure threaten the already-dubious profitability of the wind farms themselves.

It will be interesting to see if Germany will get out of this without having to now IMPORT nuclear energy from somewhere like France or increasing import rates of gas from Russia.

[Monkeypox]

Fact: Germany and Denmark, the European leaders in windfarms, have not reduced their carbon dioxide emissions, and have, in fact, had to build more gas and coal-fired power plants to ensure delivery of electricity that can't be reliably delivered from those windfarms.

[adman]

This is timely to the discussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/sea-rise-faster-east-coast-rest-globe-172002416.html

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

This is timely to the discussion.

http://news.yahoo.co...-172002416.html

Interesting that this article shows up today also..

----Just my opinion it seems the radicals on both sides are a bit wacky.... Nothing like as bad as some (includes Rick author earlier) wanted to claim but it exists somewhat. Why... who knows??.... just natural variation or ....man might be contributing some . While in Alaska a couple of years ago they were claiming that every glacier there ( 100's) except 4 are slowly getting smaller and the four that aren't are at sea level and are growing because of upstream melting and making them larger..

---- We have 100's of those wind turbines in West Texas that sends power to the metro-plex.... they aren't the answer ... but they do contribute to the power grid. ..and they are ugly..

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

The quote at the end of Rick's article ( he quoted it) sums it all up and hits both extremes:

Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

---

Edited June 25, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Monkeypox]

Many people have said that while slowing of the AMOC (which undoubtedly IS affected by global warming) may not be the actual cause of rising sea levels. In fact, it's hard to state that factually when the AMOC affects Florida as well, and yet that areadoesn't show the accelerated rise in sea levels.

So once again, the story is: yes, the sea levels on the North East are rising, and the rate is accelerated. The question is: why? Is it slowing of the AMOC? Tectonic shifts? Melting ice caps? Sallenger says AMOC slowing. Others say differently.

Hopefully more conclusive research and hard data can lead to answers.

No doubt in my mind that global warming is occuring, and that a reduction in carbon emissions at this point is an appropriate step to take, if only to alleviate the problem (whether or not man is the cause or even a significant contributor).

Still, it doesn't make bad science into good science. We need to reduce carbon emissions. That doesn't mean that if I come up with an emissions-free air conditioning unit that works off of fairy dust and moonbeams that the US Government should subsidize my factory to make them, especially once they discover that the factory burns a mix of coal, bald eagle feathers, and blue whale blubber to manufacture the units.

I don't think enough people draw the lines BETWEEN bad policy and bad economy. They'll complain about cuts to education or the increasing gap between the poor and the rich while at the same time lauding policies that throw otherwise meaningful money at proven losers.

By the way, did you know that windmill blades aren't recyclable?

Edited June 25, 2012 by Monkeypox

[DeepGreen]

Wonder if China, Indonesia, and India know anything about global warming and carbon emissions? Last I heard they do a fair amount of manufacturing for the rest of the world.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

The problem is that none of it is cost efficient. When the windmill thing came up here, we figured it would take many decades for the project to break even. I can't remember how long it was, and am too lazybusy to look it up again, but it was pretty much that we'd all be dead by the time it worth the money.

But...never let common sense economics stand in the way of a government-funded project, right?

[adman]

Early adoption of any new technology is rarely cost effective. Take the flat screen TV I'm sure you have hanging in your home somewhere. When plasma screens first hit the market they were crazy expensive. Absolutely crazy. Now look at plasma's, LED's and LCD's - CHEAP! Why? because a few were willing to buy-in early on and those dollars advanced R&D and helped drive down prices and improve the technology to a point where everyone else could afford. (And why did they come about in the first place? Because the government mandated a change in the way television stations broadcast.)

So while the windmills at Apogee may not be cost effective today - the future technology they help to energize will most likely be worth it.

[Monkeypox]

(And why did they come about in the first place? Because the government mandated a change in the way television stations broadcast.)

LCDs were developed in order to make computers portable. Its use in television largely started out with the same goal (lighter and MUCH more power efficient than tubes). Issues with refresh rates and resolution kept it from being a viable alternative for a number of years in larger televisions (why plasma was the drug of choice). These technologies were developed for use in the 1980s-1990s, and it had a lot more to do with the advent of home video, cable television programming, home computers, video game consoles, and the internet than it did with a change in broadcasting.

[adman]

LCDs were developed in order to make computers portable. Its use in television largely started out with the same goal (lighter and MUCH more power efficient than tubes). Issues with refresh rates and resolution kept it from being a viable alternative for a number of years in larger televisions (why plasma was the drug of choice). These technologies were developed for use in the 1980s-1990s, and it had a lot more to do with the advent of home video, cable television programming, home computers, video game consoles, and the internet than it did with a change in broadcasting.

If you wanna get down to it plasma was invented in 1964.

I disagree with this: "it had a lot more to do with the advent of home video, cable television programming, home computers, video game consoles, and the internet."

Do you really think people were going to their local appliance dealer and saying: "You know I've got a lot of home movies I'd like to play on a bigger, flatter screen got any of those?

The ubiquity of flat screen tv's in the U.S. is due to the fact that the government created a market for them by dictating that all broadcast stations broadcast in digital.

But back to the point - government has the ability to define and create new markets. And that is what they are doing with alternative energy sources/supply.

[Monkeypox]

If you wanna get down to it plasma was invented in 1964.

I disagree with this: "it had a lot more to do with the advent of home video, cable television programming, home computers, video game consoles, and the internet."

Do you really think people were going to their local appliance dealer and saying: "You know I've got a lot of home movies I'd like to play on a bigger, flatter screen got any of those?

No... home video meaning people watching movies at home (not home movies), and yes, that's exactly what happened. Refresh rates, glare, pixelated imagery... computers, video games, and people watching movies at home led to the flatscreen revolution. The mandates to digital signals had absolutely zero to do with driving the technology, if only for the fact that that mandate had zero impact on the original markets for them - games/computers.

It brought prices down, absolutely, but the bulk of the technology to make it work and almost all the R&D had already been paid for. None of it was developed due to the mandate. It was driven by market needs.

But back to the point - government has the ability to define and create new markets. And that is what they are doing with alternative energy sources/supply.

Government has the ability to do that, sure. They also have the ability to cripple the economy. Flatscreens were ubiquitous well before the government mandate (go to any computer lab in the early 2000s?) And the biggest failure in the analogy is that the foundation of the technologies in plasma/led/lcd televisions and digital broadcasting all WORKED. All of the above were also developed and driven well before the mandate.

Windfarms/windmills are horrifically inefficient and not even close to "green" technologies, and they've failed and will continue to fail to be a reliable means of delivery.

[adman]

No... home video meaning people watching movies at home (not home movies), and yes, that's exactly what happened. Refresh rates, glare, pixelated imagery... computers, video games, and people watching movies at home led to the flatscreen revolution. The mandates to digital signals had absolutely zero to do with driving the technology, if only for the fact that that mandate had zero impact on the original markets for them - games/computers.

You are mistaken Monkeypox. The feds had already set the wheels in motion prior to 1993. (I say 1993 because I first heard of it that year in one of my RTVF classes at NT.) Full digital broadcast didn't occur across the board until 2009, I believe, but that was simply because they kept pushing back the date due to broadcaster complaining they couldn't meet the date stipulated due to costs etc. But it was the government that drove the bus on this.

From the FCC - "In 1996, Congress authorized the distribution of an additional broadcast channel to each broadcast TV station so that they could use it for digital broadcasting while simultaneously continuing their analog broadcast channel."

In 1997 Sony & Sharp collaborated to introduce the first large flatscreen tv (42-inches) using Plasma-Addressed LCD's - the cost $15,000.

So PALC technology was eventually abandoned due to it being too expensive and unreliable. But look what happened - a technology that wasn't perfect led to better technologies.

[Monkeypox]

You are mistaken Monkeypox. The feds had already set the wheels in motion prior to 1993. (I say 1993 because I first heard of it that year in one of my RTVF classes at NT.) Full digital broadcast didn't occur across the board until 2009, I believe, but that was simply because they kept pushing back the date due to broadcaster complaining they couldn't meet the date stipulated due to costs etc. But it was the government that drove the bus on this.

From the FCC - "In 1996, Congress authorized the distribution of an additional broadcast channel to each broadcast TV station so that they could use it for digital broadcasting while simultaneously continuing their analog broadcast channel."

In 1997 Sony & Sharp collaborated to introduce the first large flatscreen tv (42-inches) using Plasma-Addressed LCD's - the cost $15,000.

So PALC technology was eventually abandoned due to it being too expensive and unreliable. But look what happened - a technology that wasn't perfect led to better technologies.

Yes, the first mandate came in 1996. I don't know what "wheels" were in motion in 1993, but that still lags far behind the development of LED/LCD/flatscreens. If anything, the development of those technologies led to the mandates, not the other way around.

And you forgot to highlight first LARGE flatscreen tv or the size of 42". That was the pertinent information in the sentence. Point is, it wasn't a government mandate. That's still just simply NOT TRUE. Home entertainment drove that technology. Commerce did it.

It's not about imperfect TECHNOLOGY. It's about bad science.

If you want the government involved in throwing money into black holes, then just be prepared to cut things like healthcare, jobs, education, and infrastructure.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Monkeypox

[yyz28]

I'm just wondering if this is about someone's on-going dislike for Al Gore, or someone's dislike for cleaner air.....regardless of the cost. Because as a grandfather of two grandchildren, I applaud any attempt to provide my grandchildren with cleaner air.

I'm soooo sorry that advocating cleaner air is more repugnant than a politician that falsely spent American lives and treasure over a false war.

This type of response drives me ballistic.

"clean air" and "global warming" are two very different things. ...and the idea that those of us who question global warming or man's role in it should it actually exist, want dirty air to breathe is such a loser, such an attempt to distract from the actual issue and demonize it cheapens your argument.

I certainly don't want dirty air. ...but the fact of the matter is that we have cleaner air today than we did 30 or 20 years ago, yet we consume more and more energy. Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide aren't "dirty" or pollutants per se, yet are by far the biggest contributors to so-called "greenhouse gasses" in our atmosphere.

I'm all for alternative types of energy which, if proven to be more efficient, cleaner and cheaper will be desired by the free market without the Government confiscating our wealth and enriching people who are developing technologies which often either don't work or can't compete.

I'm all for clean air and prudent energy policy and incentives for energy companies to find new forms of power (short of funding their research or supplementing the cost of their products that the market won't support - see the Chevy Volt). I'm against policy that will artificially inflate energy costs and an EPA who has the power to implement regulation and policy without the authorization of congress.