ECA says:

Green energy?

Hmm..lets see…

lets ask a few questions FIRST.
How much of the ELECTRIC GRID is owned by the ELECTRIC CORPS? 10%??
How much of the GRID is owned by private corps? 30-40%??
HOW much is OWNED by the government? 60+ %??

So? what are you paying for?
YOU PAY for the lease the GOV gave to the electric corp, for POWER.
YOU PAY for the LINES to your homes(how many years have those been around?)
YOU PAY for that BIG building with HUNDREDS of people running around, making BILLS??

Let me add, 1 more thing. YOU PAY for the electric CORP, to put POWER on the stock exchange…and FIND a HIGHER/BEST PRICE. TO SELL to another STATE.
WHICH is funny. as POWER ISNT STORED. its NOT MADE until its needed. so they SELL, what they CAN/WILL/MAY make/ORDER from the grid..BUT they sell it on the STATE/Corp that needs it..

NOW, even tho your STATE can make tons of power, dont mean you GET IT..you may sell it to ANOTHER state for a HIGH price, then BY from another PLACE for MORE then you MADE from MAKING THE POWER(LESS then you SOLD IT) by you PASS on the HIGH RATE to the customer.
IS THAT CHEAP?

This is called LOCALIZED power..they want the power created in 1 location, and SELL it where YOU need it. ASK how much hover dam cost.. ALSO add in the cost of the LAND it changed..the FISH that dont live in DEEP WATER.
Consider how much COPPER WIRE has been run for this 1 dam.

There is another way…DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM.
A TOWN or even EVERY HOME…can create power.
SOLAR WORKS IN WINTER.

There are changes to be made..and they DONT encompass LARGE CITY DWELLINGS, and having homes every 50′.
CAN basic changes in buildings SAVE ENERGY?? yes. Even in winter? YES.

What makes ALTERNATIVE POWER EXPENSIVE?
STORAGE.
Being able to store energy over a time period of NO POWER created. is the BIGGEST problem.

The NEXT problem comes from HOW MUCH power we do use. HOW much of our USE is 100% USE?
MOST of our heating is <70%
MOST of water heating is < 20%
Food heating <10%
Think of the efficiency loss.

I suggest many of you look at it. YOU COULD save about 50% of your heating in winter, by adding a SUN/PLANT ROOM..it can heat your home in winter.

Alex says:

You Americans are incredible. You have been the most important country on science and technology for a century, but still you dont want to believe in science when contradicts ideology. You believe in science when you receive treatment for cancer, but you reject evolution or global warming if your ignorant politicians told you to do so. The wheather is going extreme in the last years, there is a global warming, and there must be a connection between these two.

gmknobl says:

Yes, this does actually show a very likely and predicted outcome of global warming.

Anyone thinking that it shows the opposite cannot think clearly anymore. Sorry. The truth hurts.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

Animby==you blather.

An excellent existential moment for me to switch nom de flames: I post now as:

bobbo, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind? — Animby?

Heh, heh. Well, since you are very resistant on this little kludge of reality, let’s parse:

Bobbie, what I tried to imply was that random events are NOT accounted for in the models. /// None of us knows “the models” as well as we do our own assholes. You might be an exception to this rule, but I doubt it. I will “assume” just the opposite that as many random acts as are recognized and deemed model worthy are indeed “modeled” and part of the equations crunched for the IPCC predicitions. I won’t even ask you what you think “random” means when it comes to climate prediction.

Nor can I find anywhere in the average temperature graphs where previous random events are accounted for. /// And how would that be displayed except as part of the graphed net effect? Silly.

IU like to think I am not a Luddite about AGW. I want to be convinced for OR against. /// Oh “convinced” you want to be?? How many other issues do you need to be “convinced” about before you form an opinion, take an action, or allow others who are qualified to do so take the reigns while you dither? If you aren’t convinced, why do you post against the consensus of qualified scientists? You were convinced ulcers were caused by stress until the consensus changed. Why are you so resolute in areas of expertise outside your own? Ha, ha. Poor Animby, caught out.

But there is evidence for either. I’ve read that we are almost exactly at the 11,500 year mark since the end of the last ice age. Oddly, ice ages seem to be on an 11,500 year cycle. (Please don’t ask me to research that right now.) /// These are points made by Bastardi above.

At this point, I’m much more inclined to believe any GW is a solar anomaly than anthropogenic. /// Now why do you equate your ignorance and lack of qualification with just the opposite of good people, good people like you and me, have spent their lives, their professional lives, studying the issue and conclude just the opposite????? In a very real sense, you turn your back on your own professional expertise. THINK Animby—you can do it!

We’ve fallen slave to the greenhouse gas scare before. We got rid of all the efficient refrigerants and now use the less efficient ones thereby INCREASING our use of energy. /// Well, not to quibble but the Ozone Hole was not about Global Warming except tangentially as all things are connected. When you introduce charged terms like “slavery” I know you are being a slave to some other emotion and not your intellect. Yes, its a multifactorial universe. Save the Ozone Hole by use of less efficient refrigerants until we can yell loudly enough for newer green tech to take its place. And the hole closed faster than we thought it would==the world is saved. And that is a failure how again?

Then we find out Freon may not have been as bad as we thought! /// Yes, maybe not as bad==but what if it IS? Just how risk tolerant should we be for what competing values? Speaking of slavery, what are we oil bitches????

We kneejerk too much. /// Obviously so but you’ve got the wrong stimulus identified.

I only call for a calm and thorough study by a truly independent and objective group of scientists. //// “Truly” yes truly. And how do you divine this truly Man of Science?

Right now, it seems everyone for AGW has a financial interest in there being AGW. /// I have not such interest. I doubt most of the IPCC scientists do either. Do you have a financial interest in maintaining Darwinism Animby? Again==Silly. A madeup critique in a vacuum of facts. Beneath you–as a Man of Science.

Too many of the anti-AGW proponents also have a financial interest. The science on either side suffers. /// No it doesn’t. The blather on both sides suffers, the science remains whatever it is that we are both ignorant of. Would really make a thinking man stfu?

Ha, ha. Yea Verily. The answer is DEVO!!!!!

desert man says:

It’s 25 degrees F in Las Vegas this AM. But clear skies and no snow and highs in the 50s today and 60s tomorrow. 🙂

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

Alfie==that is an excellent link to a link. Good demonstration of the confusion surrounding any complex issue.

Don’t forget to take your vitamins.

The_Tick says:

Why is it whenever Alfred posts I have the urge to pat him on the head and smile?

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

Alfie – no its not.

Why Bother says:

And THIS is why most scientists are ‘liberal’ or Democrats…you people are F**KING RETARDED!

This is WHAT the models predicted. Your problem isn’t TEMPERATURE in Chicago, it’s MOISTURE (rain/snow). You don’t seem to have a 5 year olds understanding of the concept. Global warming is about TEMPERATURE across the GLOBE (not your city) for the year (average, not what it is just today).

This storm is within NORMAL bounds for temperature. MY GOD! It’s below freezing in Chicago in Jan/Feb…surly global warming isn’t real! Just like saying it’s 90 in Chicago in July, so there’s no such thing as ice ages. RETARDED! It’s normal to be below freezing in Chicago in Jan/Feb. This storm was ONLY abnormal in MOISTURE (snow), which like the current super flooding in Australia is exactly what the climate scientists told you would happen. F**K you people are stupid!

Temperature != Rain

Guyver says:

38, Bobbo,

Really embarassing to see a man of your intellectual accomplishments lead with ignorance of basic science.

.

Basic science as in the scientific method? As in empirical evidence? As in correlation is not causation? Stop using your dogmatic faith and try actually using some science.

Well, in its “best light, thats definitional. No, there will NEVER be proof of AGW because there is no control group necessary to formal “proof” ((yes, outside of mathematics)). Just like there is no proof that cigarettes cause cancer ((yada, yada)) or that vitamin c deficiency causes scurvy.

Ummm, Captain Cook already established you can “cure” scurvy with vitamin-c. Hence why British sailors were called “limeys”. Duh.
As for there will NEVER be proof of AGW because there is no control group, don’t be so naïve. If you can quantify mankind’s CO2 contribution is the root cause then you can make accurate predictions of not so distant future trends. You’re trying to use the lack of a control group as a crutch.

Problem is believers in AGW climate “science” are much like believers in Nostradamus. You guys never seem to predict future outcomes based on your sources, but you get all high and mighty AFTER something happens and try to rationalize things away with things like “it’s the energy of the system”. LOL. That’s not science. That’s double talk.

You want to make this skeptic believe you? Predict something that will happen in the next five years based on human CO2 output you’ve quantified. Otherwise, your simulations are just garbage because the assumptions have been flawed to begin with. I’m not interested in the 100-year predictions where you and I will both be six feet under.

Parts of the Midwest are going to hit a low of zero degrees or below tonight when the historic average this time of year has been around 40 degrees. Please explain how much man-made CO2 output had to increase over the past couple of years for this to occur.

See No2-you can’t. Just strong correlations which is the best science can offer when control groups are not possible/allowed. The opposite though is still a puzzler: How would dumping billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere have no effect at all?

You consider yourself a man of science, yet you resort to implying correlation is causation. Ha! And no it’s not the best science has to offer. You guys have quantified human CO2 output. You have your simulations. You have enough to make “accurate” predictions. So PROVE it and stop making excuses.

And you should know full well your “billions of tons of CO2” argument is an intentional exaggeration over the significance to the system. It’s not a puzzler if you’re intellectually honest.

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System: http://tinyurl.com/gtp6z

Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, water vapor is 95% while CO2 makes up 3.618% (man-made & natural). The billions of tons of CO2 caused by human activity you’re referring to makes up 0.117% of all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

OhMyGuyver==when did Capt Cook run a double blind study? Wasn’t he financially motivated to find a cure? Wasn’t he biased to find a cure? Was he qualified to diagnose scurvy or its “cure.”

why do you accept pragmatism for scurvy but demand “proof” for what you don’t understand in detail at all?

Your position and argument is silly. Protected only by its length. Pick a node you feel most comfortable on. I’m sure you are wrong.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

OhMyGuyver==I’ll meet you half way. So, in your ignorance you bray that water vapor is everything and co2 is irrelevant? The science on the matter be damned because 95% is a big number while 3% is small? Haw HAW!!! Very stupid position. Now, I’m not being insulting–that just is a VERY STUPID POSITION. It a good example of arguing from ignorance.

Why don’t you update with wiki on the subject and tell these secientists they are wrong????

Ha, ha. There are some good arguments against AGW. Yours ain’t among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Guyver says:

88, Bobbo,

So, in your ignorance you bray that water vapor is everything and co2 is irrelevant?

In terms of greenhouse gases, water vapor clearly dominates.

In terms of CO2, mother nature dominates. Monther nature produces nearly 30 times more CO2 than humans do. I did not state that CO2 is irrelvant. Only a person with a reading comprehension problem would interpret that. I am questioning whether or not human’s contribution is significant.

Why don’t you update with wiki on the subject and tell these secientists they are wrong????

Wikipedia is one of the worst places to get any objective information on topics with a political or theological nature.

Ha, ha. There are some good arguments against AGW. Yours ain’t among them.

And when are humans projected to double CO2 output?

All I want is a 5-year prediction. Make an accurate prediction with quantified human CO2 output and you’ll have my attention.

Guyver says:

And when I say “accurate” 5-year prediction, I’m not talking about something so vague that it’s open for interpretation like how some Nostradamus fanboys are that the AGWers wish they were like.

So what says:

If I were a betting person, I would bet that 50% of you are right. Question is which 50? Judging by the comments its a toss up.