Open thread

open_thread

I’m otherwise engaged today, so it is time for an open thread.

Discussion is open within the limits of WUWT policy.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Open Thread. Bookmark the permalink.

237 Responses to Open thread

  1. john piccirilli says:

    I propose a new countdown. Actually it is a count- up. Number of birds killed by turbines.

  2. John Whitman says:

    A frequent topic is questioning the assessment processes of the IPCC. What parts are science processes and what parts pseudo-science processes?

    Generically I ask what is(are) the fundamental distinction(s) between science and pseudo-science?

    If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.

    John

  3. Brad Keyes says:

    I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” He may still be mired in the skeptics-are-not-grasping-the-evidence preconception endemic to his profession, but he doesn’t lie about or censor what skeptics write on his blog. Therefore let’s not make the mistake of dismissing him as another Cook or Lewandowsky.

    (Kahan was recently rude, for no good reason, to Willis E., but apart from that he’s been a gentleman, as far as I can see.)

    Thanks for reading this plug—
    BK

  4. Wijnand Schoutem says:

    You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.

  5. Peter Crawford says:

    As a megalomaniac with a secret base within Holyhead Mountain (henchmen, helicopters, geezers with steel teeth, I got all that) I am encountering a problem. Being a wealthy megalomaniac I didn’t have the agonizing choice between lake of molten magma versus shark-infested pool and plumped for both. The magma lake was a doddle, it’s flowing well and apart from the unfortunate incident with the tealady Mrs.McGillis (she shouldn’t have been so bloody careless in my view) there have been no problems.

    The problem is with the pool. I have tried to infest it with sharks but so far no success. I managed to manhandle a few up the cliffs but the only two that survived are stubbornly refusing to breed.. I strongly suspect that the female is a lesbian shark (caught her reading The Guardian on many occasions). Do any other WUWT readers have any tips on how to get a really good infestation going?

  6. Brad Keyes says:

    John,

    there are scientific methods for squeezing juice out of already-published science—methods such as systematic review and scientific meta-analysis—and then there’s the way IPCC does it: by getting a bunch of alarmist political attachés to look over the shoulders of a bunch of handpicked scientists and reaching an inane consensus. They call this “synthesis” but it conforms to no known scientific method. Everything about it—down to the way they express their confidence in their own prophecies—is non-scientific. And when a prediction fails, they don’t even pretend to follow Feynman’s law of science (“if your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong”). Clearly they’re playing to a scientifically-uneducated audience, and they know it.

    Unless I’m missing something, it’s no more “scientific” than a conclave of cardinals, but in a tropical hotel.

  7. John Whitman:

    re your post at September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am.

    Science and pseudoscience have often been discussed on WUWT.

    Science is an attempt to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which contradicts existing understanding(s) and amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in the light of obtained information.

    Pseudoscience accepts an existing understanding as being ‘true’ then seeking information which supports the understanding while ignoring and/or rejecting information which contradicts existing understanding.

    Richard

  8. peter says:

    Just glanced at Scientific American at the newstand today. Put it back quickly when the first thing I saw was a commentary on how the new report on GW didn’t mention that Permafrost is melting far faster than predicted, putting us in danger of vast Methane emissions, and that Greenland is melting far faster than predicted as well, which was news to me. They claimed that the problem with the UN body was that it takes so long to process a report that they often don’t get in the latest scariest news.

  9. Brad Keyes says:

    Richard,

    those are excellent definitions.

    (What you call pseudoscience I also like to call ecneics.)
    BK

  10. Bill H says:

    John Whitman says:
    September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am

    A frequent topic is questioning the assessment processes of the IPCC. What parts are science processes and what parts pseudo-science processes?

    Generically I ask what is(are) the fundamental distinction(s) between science and pseudo-science?

    If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.

    John

    ====================================

    First we must define what is not political, or politically driven.

    Given the IPCC is purely political and socialist control fanatics the group as a whole is nothing but garbage and agenda 21. control policies. Obama is on board with the one world government agenda as well, one simply has to look at the EPA to see it.

  11. PaulH says:

    You know that old saying, “Nature abhors a vacuum”? Well, with my latest attempt at trim carpentry I can add a few more items:
    - Nature abhors 90 degree angles (corners).
    - Nature abhors straight lines.
    - Nature abhors flat surfaces (walls, floors).

    There may be others, but my skills and patience are limited. I guess that helps to explain why carpentry is a venerated skilled trade. :-)

  12. Pamela Gray says:

    John, I prefer well-done science versus poorly-done science. Even science that holds to the null hypothesis, ie: that Earth is a highly variable planet with multiple intrinsic random-walk oscillations teleconnecting between oceanic and atmospheric semi-permanent systems can be poorly done.

  13. Wijnand Schoutem:

    At September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am you assert

    You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.

    “Renewable energy is not climate”?
    Tell that to the politicians who are inflicting the damage and immense expense of wind, solar, and biofuels on us in the mistaken belief that such use will reduce CO2 emissions. In reality these expensive methods INCREASE CO2 emissions. See
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf

    If you want to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East then increase fracking for gas and oil.

    Richard

  14. JA says:

    Prior to Mann’s Hockey Stick, was there any doubt whatsoever about the existence of the Medieval Warming Period?
    If not , how could anyone produce a paper which obiterates the MWP , unless it was intentionally and purposefully fraudulent ??

  15. Proxima says:

    Everything is crumbling down!
    The geeks are starting to doubt the AGW gospel:
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/the-climate-change-report-will-confirm.html

  16. John Bell in Michigan says:

    It is grand to read reports of the alarmists backpedalling, slowly at first, as the climate cools in the natural sinusoidal cycle, they will think of reasons they can list of why their dire predictions failed, they will throw the blame on Mother Nature. The sea ice is more this year, and I bet it will be even more next year as it returns to average. Their empire is crumbling, and I snicker smugly. Good job, Anthony, hail to thee good citizen. WUWT is a great place to be! Thanks to all the readers as well.

  17. Yet another Mike from the Carson Valley where we deal with cold a lot and heat says:

    Snow at the 8000 footlevel in the Sierrra yesterday. Must be that cursed climate change at it again.

  18. Pete says:

    “As you journey through life, my friend,
    “Whatever be your goal.
    “Keep your eye upon the donut,
    “And not the donut hole.” ___ Anonymous

    A useful allegory for recognizing the credible conduct of science, as opposed to the non-credible (or incredible!) conduct of science.

  19. Bill H says:

    Proxima says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:25 am

    Everything is crumbling down!
    The geeks are starting to doubt the AGW gospel:
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/the-climate-change-report-will-confirm.html

    ===================================

    [img] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ssfs099OLVQ/Uj5OYVxlO1I/AAAAAAAApco/hZyuSyYo8YQ/s640/17yr_santer_graph.png [/img]

    Well this kind of looks like the top of a normal sign wave….Can you say “natural variability”?

  20. John Whitman says:

    Brad Keyes on September 22, 2013 at 8:09 am

    John,

    there are scientific methods for squeezing juice out of already-published science—methods such as systematic review and scientific meta-analysis—and then there’s the way IPCC does it: by [the IPCC] getting a bunch of alarmist political attachés to look over the shoulders of a bunch of handpicked scientists and reaching an inane consensus. They call this “synthesis” but it conforms to no known scientific method. Everything about it—down to the way they express their confidence in their own prophecies—is non-scientific. And when a prediction fails, they don’t even pretend to follow Feynman’s law of science (“if your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong”). Clearly they’re playing to a scientifically-uneducated audience, and they know it.

    Unless I’m missing something, it’s no more “scientific” than a conclave of cardinals, but in a tropical hotel.

    {bold emphasis by me-JW}

    - – - – - – -

    Brad Keyes,

    Your comment appreciated. Thanks for being the first responder.

    I think your distinction starts discussion on a good direction. Also, there should be fundamental distinctions between mimickers and the mimicked. What are those distinctions?

    You concluding paragraph was a classic keeper. : ) Thanks.

    John

  21. ferd berple says:

    Brad Keyes says:
    September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
    Kahan was recently rude, for no good reason
    ============
    Looks like a lot more than simply rude. The following snip from a post by Willis appears to cover it:

    August 16, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterWillis Eschenbach
    OK, I get it. Mr. Kahan fooled me by first using an alias, and subsequently by lying to me to keep the deception going. But that’s all on me, because in Joshuareality, I fooled myself—I just saw what I wanted to see …

    Joshua, using an alias on your own web site is an action which is guaranteed to fool some of the people some of the time. Thus, when Mr. Kahan does it, we can safely assume that is his intention. He is setting out to fool people by using an alias, and he is successful in his aim.

    And when I questioned it, he lied to keep up the pretense. When I said that the dmk38 post was bizarre, he lied to my face, assuring me that yes, he thought it was strange as well.

  22. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 22, 2013 at 8:11 am

    Brad Keyes on September 22, 2013 at 8:15 am

    Bill H on September 22, 2013 at 8:15 am

    Pamela Gray on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 am

    - – - – - – -

    richardscourtney, Brad Keyes, Bill H, Pamela Gray;

    Thanks for engaging the topic. I will have return comments after a few hours. Personal stuff to attend to first.

    John

  23. Scarface says:

    @Peter Crawford

    Well, Al Gore jumps sharks on a regular basis. Maybe you could follow him around for a while and catch them when they are mounted. It may be cold at those places though, so don’t forget your coat.

  24. Latitude says:

    peter says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:12 am
    They claimed that the problem with the UN body was that it takes so long to process a report that they often don’t get in the latest scariest news.
    ====
    All that really happens is by the time they get a report through…
    …the weather changes and makes total fools out of them

  25. _Jim says:

    Anybody else operate WSPR? Interested in radio and global/local propagation conditions and/or propagation reporting?

    Or testing HF antennas in situ in real-life environments (subjected to ‘real’ ground, compromise ground radial sets et al) vs ‘on the range’ or modeling via NECWIN, EZNEC or 4NEC2?

    .

  26. Brad Keyes says:

    ferd:

    Looks like a lot more than simply rude. The following snip from a post by Willis appears to cover it:

    Fair enough, yeah, it was more than simply rude. All I can say in his defense is that it was uncharacteristic. And the resident cheerleader “Joshua” didn’t exactly help.

  27. CD (@CD153) says:

    Wijnand Schoutem:

    At September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am you say:

    “You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependent on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.”

    I don’t know where you obtained the idea that wind, solar and bio-fuels can have any meaningful effect on our crude oil dependency, but it is wrong. If you would bother to do some research (rather than blindly listen to and believe in those from the Green Movement), you would find that crude oil in this country is used overwhelmingly for refinement into surface and air transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel), petrochemicals, and materials like plastics. The last I checked, only about 1% of our crude oil supplies was used to generate electricity. We could generate all the wind, solar and bio-fuel electricity we want (which I don’t support for a variety of reasons), but it would have very nearly a zero effect on our crude oil dependency. For more information, check out the website http://www.eia.gov.

    Replacing our fossil fuel power plants is one thing. It can be done with third and fourth generation nuclear plants (check out the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor). I fully support that, although it will take a great deal of time and money to do. I don’t anticipate seeing it happen in my lifetime, if ever. Wind, solar and bio-fuels will never get that job done.

    However, replacing our dependency on crude oil is another story entirely. Hydrogen fuel cells have a variety of problems to overcome (if they ever do) before they replace the internal combustion engine. I for one won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Electric cars have bombed in the car market time and again due to numerous shortcomings which are unacceptable to car buyers.

    I find it disturbing the way members of the Green Movement keep wrongly associating wind, solar and other so-called “green energies” with reductions in crude oil dependency. The facts as I understand them don’t support such a notion. I wish they would get over it.

  28. Latitude says:

    Electric cars have bombed in the car market time and again due to numerous shortcomings which are unacceptable to car buyers.
    ====
    spontaneous combustion would be one of those

  29. Richard111 says:

    Question from a baffled layman. How does a transparent gas cool down after it has been warmed by conduction from the surface? Nitrogen, oxygen and argon, 99.99% of the atmosphere qualify as transparent gases. Everyone says warmed air rises and cools. Does it really? Where did the energy go?

  30. CD (@CD153) says:

    One other thing…. Bio-fuels as a transportation fuel alternative to refined crude oil products is largely dependent on production costs among other things. I find it highly unlikely that we will ever be able to produce enough biomass in this country at a cost-competitive price to make a large, serious dent in our crude oil dependency. If it were possible to do so, I’m sure we would be seeing a lot more of it by now.

    I could be wrong about that, but that is my two cents worth on the subject.

  31. Jeff Alberts says:

    PaulH says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:16 am

    You know that old saying, “Nature abhors a vacuum”? Well, with my latest attempt at trim carpentry I can add a few more items:
    - Nature abhors 90 degree angles (corners).
    - Nature abhors straight lines.
    - Nature abhors flat surfaces (walls, floors).

    There may be others, but my skills and patience are limited. I guess that helps to explain why carpentry is a venerated skilled trade. :-)

    I know you were making a joke, but I often hear folks say “there are no straight lines in nature”. This is patently false. You can find straight lines all over the place. The problem is they’re not as long as we would like to consider them “straight lines”. Crystalline formations often contain many straight lines, and flat surfaces. Example: http://urielweb.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/crystal-blue_1.jpg

    The problem is our perception, and wanting to speak in absolutes.

  32. GlynnMhor says:

    JA, I remember prior not only to Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ but prior to the whole AGW fear mongery that the MWP was known as the ‘Mediaeval Climatic Optimum’.

    But calling a warm period an ‘Optimum’ would have run counter to the meme the paradigm wanted to impose that warm == bad.

  33. ferd berple says:

    Brad Keyes says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:59 am
    Fair enough, yeah, it was more than simply rude. All I can say in his defense is that it was uncharacteristic. And the resident cheerleader “Joshua” didn’t exactly help.
    =========
    or it is characteristic and only Willis spotted the deception. Didn’t Willis also say that he first thought Joshua was dmk38? If you are already double posting to your own blog via an alias, why stop at one?

  34. ferd berple says:

    GlynnMhor says:
    September 22, 2013 at 9:18 am
    JA, I remember prior not only to Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ but prior to the whole AGW fear mongery that the MWP was known as the ‘Mediaeval Climatic Optimum’.
    ==============
    Here is a bit of irony:
    Medieval Climatic Optimum
    Michael E Mann
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

  35. H.R. says:

    Peter Crawford says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:09 am

    “As a megalomaniac with a secret base within Holyhead Mountain (henchmen, helicopters, geezers with steel teeth, I got all that) …[jealousy inducing details omitted for brevity's sake]…

    … Do any other WUWT readers have any tips on how to get a really good infestation going?”

    I can’t believe you didn’t think to set your e-e-e-evil Global Climate Control Machine (Pat. Pend. and stolen from G. Bush) to “Sharknado” and aim it at your pool. Sheesh! It’s a no brainer for the average megalomaniac.

  36. john piccirilli says:

    With apollogies to Robert Frost;
    Whose woods these are I used to know
    His house collapsed from all this snow
    He cannot see me stopping here
    To watch his turbines turn real slow

    My little horse must think it queer
    To see dead birds so far and near
    He gives his harness bell a shake
    Even he knows they’re a big mistake

    The woods WERE lovely, dark and deep
    But now they only make me weep
    This is a lesson for all to keep
    .Al Gore really is a creep

  37. Jeff Alberts says:

    I can’t believe you didn’t think to set your e-e-e-evil Global Climate Control Machine (Pat. Pend. and stolen from G. Bush) to “Sharknado” and aim it at your pool. Sheesh! It’s a no brainer for the average megalomaniac.

    And I’ll bet he told the hero all about his plan for world domination, right after leaving said hero completely unattended in some Rube Goldbergian death contraption with which nothing could possibly go wrong.

  38. oMan says:

    Judith Curry’s op-ed in The Australian is getting a buzz. I liked her argument. She has done some serious thinking on cognitive bias, how humans address uncertainty, etc. The IPCC adopting politicized processes to turn their “science” into action –or is it the politicians adopting the IPCC to legitimate their agenda?– is not the best way, and she properly questions it.

  39. Jeff Alberts says:

    I’m continuing this discussion here instead of going OT in another thread.

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 21, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    From Jeff Alberts on September 21, 2013 at 11:57 am:

    I don’t know of a power chair that uses batteries as small as 12ah (I repair them for a living). There might be some out there, but I’ll wager they’re extremely rare. Smaller scooters do use 12ah batteries, but PWCs use group U-1 (~35ah) and higher.

    Don’t they group smaller ones in parallel? With the right electronics, or mere electrical circuits, you can increase reliability by disconnecting faulty ones. Three of those get the U-1 range, if one goes out then you still have about 2/3 range. Makes the difference between getting back from the store or not.

    And I’ve seen designs that have at least two battery boxes. Multiple smaller batteries can be placed in various nooks for a more compact design.

    For the planned solar-powered weather station and webcam (wi-fi or cellular?), 12Ah should be enough for several cloudy days.

    All of the power wheelchairs and scooters I’ve ever seen (except one) use two 12v batteries connected in series to get 24v while maintaining the ah rating of the batteries. The one exception used three smaller batteries (12ah I believe) in series for a 36 volt system. Sometimes the batteries are in one compartment, others have them in individual boxes, but they’re always in series. Disconnect one and the system won’t work.

    Certainly a different application than a solar battery array.

  40. Mike Smith says:

    PaulH says:
    - Nature abhors 90 degree angles (corners).
    - Nature abhors straight lines.
    - Nature abhors flat surfaces (walls, floors).

    In a similar vein, C Northcote Parkinson said “Work expands to fill the time available”.

    There are some variations like “Stuff expands to fill the closets available”. And another invented by me (and possibly others too so I can’t claim to be the first):

    Data expands to fill the disk drives available.

  41. milodonharlani says:

    ferd berple says:
    September 22, 2013 at 9:23 am

    In 1965, Lamb called the MWP an “epoch”. Both “period” & “epoch” are geological chronological terms, so neither is ideal.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031018265900040

    Before the MWP became a “Climatic Optimum”, there was the long, previous Holocene Climatic Optimum. Only recently has the MWP become a “Climatic Anomaly”.

  42. I’ve been running some numbers to see how much GISS has been diverging from the satellites in the last decade.

    It’s quite startling.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/giss-rss-diverge-and-guess-which-way/

  43. Brad Keyes says:

    ferd:

    or it is characteristic and only Willis spotted the deception.

    Yep, a legitimate question which I guess you’d need to determine for yourself. One thing I can say to a moral certainty is that “Joshua” is not Kahan’s alter ego. (Compare their written styles.)

    As for why I still think there is good in Kahan: recall that he published the first paper that disproved the “Science Comprehension Thesis” by showing that skeptics are slightly *more*, not *less*, scientifically-literate than alarmists. And that he published this result despite its contradicting his own working hypothesis. I think we all know what Lewandowsky would’ve done with such data.

  44. Bill Church says:

    Richard111 says:
    September 22, 2013 at 9:12 am
    Question from a baffled layman. How does a transparent gas cool down after it has been warmed by conduction from the surface? Nitrogen, oxygen and argon, 99.99% of the atmosphere qualify as transparent gases. Everyone says warmed air rises and cools. Does it really? Where did the energy go?

    I understand that it does not go anywhere. As a parcel of warmed air rises, it expands and thus cools (the dry adiabat). When it reaches its dew point, water vapour starts to condense to water droplets and clouds form releasing the latent heat of condensation. This gives the parcel more energy to continue rising and expanding – the wet adiabat. Adiabatic means roughly no energy in and no energy out.
    Convective clouds depend on the relationship between the environmental lapse rate (generally the actual decrease in air temperature with altitude) and the dry and wet adiabat. See also “lifted index” and “CAPE”.

  45. rogerknights says:

    Wijnand Schoutem says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am

    You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependent on oil, . . . .

    Whatever it takes = shale gas & oil + some form of cleaner nuclear + cold fusion research money.

  46. Steve Oregon says:

    “Quirks”? OK. But how many quirks can a climate model quirk if a climatologist could model quirks? Or something stupid like that?

    “Energy will hide out in the ocean for a while before it pops out into the atmosphere,” Oppenheimer said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/ipcc-climate-report_n_3957766.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D378257

    IPCC Climate Report Struggles With Temperature Quirks

  47. Brad Keyes says:

    john piccirilli—lovely stuff!

  48. Toto says:

    This quote from Christopher Hitchens (No One Left to Lie to) has some relevance to climate science.

    Hanna Arendt once wrote that the great success of Stalinism among the intellectuals could be attributed to one annihilating tactic. Stalinism replaced all debate about the merits of any argument, or a position, or even a person, with an inquiry about motive.

  49. DirkH says:

    Wijnand Schoutem says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am
    “You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.”

    Notice that this commenter talks to no one even though his comment is made to look like an answer to someone. I think he’s a renewable energy lobbyist spambot.

  50. Sam The First says:

    Meanwhile, today on The Independent’s website, there is this demonstration of what we are still up against:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/whatever-happened-to-climate-change-8831686.html

    This is a paper much read by journalists and other media people, teachers and lecturers, and politicians.

    Someone in the comments has stated, regarding Al Gore’s hockey schtick:
    “The hockey stick continues to be independently replicated, again and again. It has become one of the most trusted graphs in science.”
    Other commentators nod their heads sagely and agree wholeheartedly, making similarly ill-informed statements about just about every other contentious aspect of the climate debate.

    Will someone who can explain the issues succinctly please go over there and talk some sense to them?

  51. CD (@CD153):

    At September 22, 2013 at 9:14 am you say in total

    One other thing…. Bio-fuels as a transportation fuel alternative to refined crude oil products is largely dependent on production costs among other things. I find it highly unlikely that we will ever be able to produce enough biomass in this country at a cost-competitive price to make a large, serious dent in our crude oil dependency. If it were possible to do so, I’m sure we would be seeing a lot more of it by now.

    I could be wrong about that, but that is my two cents worth on the subject.

    You cannot be wrong about that. Cost is the sum of price and subsidies.

    Renewables such as biomass, wind and solar cannot be cheaper than coal or other fossil fuel energy: it is physically impossible. I have explained this on other threads and I copy the explanation to here. It is as follows.

    All energy is free. It was all created at the Big Bang. But it is costly to collect energy and to concentrate it for conduct of useful work.

    Fortunately, nature has collected and concentrated energy for us.

    For example, the little energy available in sunlight has been collected by photosynthesis over geological ages, and the collected energy exists in dry, compressed stores known as fossil fuels, notably coal.

    The energy available in sunlight as it falls, or the solar energy collected as biomass is in such small amounts that collecting it costs much more than collecting the energy concentrated in fossil fuels.

    Wind is also energy supplied by the sun but it is also too feeble in normal winds to make its collection affordable when the solar energy collected by fossil fuels is so much and is so concentrated.

    However, hydropower is solar energy collected by evapouration over large areas which is concentrated when it falls as rain and is routed to rivers by geography. This large collection area makes hydropower affordable in competition with fossil fuels and nuclear power. (Nuclear power is energy concentrated by now long-dead stars).

    The high concentration of energy in fossil fuels is why windpower and muscle power (from animals and slaves) were abandoned when the high energy intensity in fossil fuels became available for use as power by using of the steam engine.

    But hydropower was not abandoned and is still used because the energy intensity in falling water is comparable to the energy intensity in fossil fuels.

    In summation, collecting energy for use is cheap by using hydropower, fossil fuels and nuclear power because nature has done most of the collecting. But collecting energy is expensive from biomass, wind and solar because we have to do all the collection ourselves.

    Richard

  52. _Jim says:

    Richard111 says: September 22, 2013 at 9:12 am

    Question from a baffled layman. How does a transparent gas …

    A transparent ‘gas’ to … visible light? Pretty much “yes”, but to other various ‘energy’ (UV, shortwave IR and longwave IR) wavelengths? It depends.

    Click on my name above to see a graphical chart showing the transmissivity of the atmosphere and also indicating where various ‘gases’ (incl O2, H2O, CO2 etc) exhibit the property to block (intercept) as well as re-radiate thermal ‘heat’ energy existing as Electromagnetic (EM) wave energy (like: ‘the warming rays of the sun’ type energy or the warmth one feels from a campfire or fireplace or the burning ‘charcoal’ coals in a grill) …

    .

  53. rtj1211 says:

    ‘John Whitman says:
    September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am
    A frequent topic is questioning the assessment processes of the IPCC. What parts are science processes and what parts pseudo-science processes?

    Generically I ask what is(are) the fundamental distinction(s) between science and pseudo-science?

    If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.

    John’

    My judgement is that there are three key politicising events taking place in IPCC reports:

    1. Deciding which contributions to seek out and which to omit.
    2. Deciding how to ‘simplify’ the inevitably complex detail of the scientific submissions into a digestible political form.
    3. Claiming that the science, which is always a best estimate within a framework of uncertainty, is gospel truth.

    IN my judgement, the following are key places to be skeptical:
    1. Investing in computer models designed to fit the data already acquired a predictive capability.
    2. Being obsessed with 150 years of climate history rather than 150 million years.
    3. Continuing to rely on thermometer readings with all the attendant uncertainties, inconsistencies and lack of coverage uniformity, given the vastly superior radiosonde- and satellite data sets now of 60 and 35 years length respectively.

  54. Donald Mitchell says:

    The possibility of another Carrington event and the almost unimaginable consequences it could have gets raised from time to time. It has been conflated with the EMP from high altitude nuclear explosions. I have seen discussions of how much damage they could cause, how long it would take to repair that damage, and how much death and suffering result. I have never found a good detailed examination of how they cause the damage. It is my understanding that the damage is caused by magnetic fields that induce voltage in circuits, whether they be the continental scale power distribution network or an hand held electronic device which might be eight orders of magnitude smaller. However it is my understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) of the problem that the effect of a changing magnetic field is determined by the rate of change of the field integrated over the entire loop and the area of that loop is going to change as the square of a dimension of the loop, so we could be considering differences of 16 orders of magnitude. To me, this indicates that the frequencies of the field have to be so different to cause problems over such a huge range of size that is is almost impossible to analyze the problems in a similar manner. I would appreciate seeing a post that included (or even pointed to sources that I could go to) :
    1 A description of the frequencies involved.
    2 A description of the actual magnetic flux that would occur.
    3 A description of the rate of change of magnetic flux that occur.
    4 A detailed description of exactly how the damage is caused.

    As I understand the Carrington type event, the low frequency components generate significant voltages in damaging amounts only in large loops or in the differences induced in the earths surface.
    A long AC power transmission line will have huge problems if only a small very low frequency voltage exists between the ground potentials at the two ends. Does this affect the local distribution loops? Other than a loss of power to the transformer on the post in my back yard, how will anything on the secondary side of that transformer be affected. How about the local distribution grid that only covers a few square miles? How big could a grid be (assuming that it had adequate local generating facilities and could disconnect from any larger grid quickly) before it would sustain significant damage?
    With a HVDC power transmission line, how are the vulnerabilities affected?
    As I understand it, HVDC power transmission has been used primarily where there are potential problems in phase or frequency compensation, where there is excessive loss due to the AC field of the line, or where HVAC is extremely difficult such as underwater cables. Would it reduce the vulnerabilities if HVDC was used in strategic locations?
    I cannot imagine a Carrington event affecting actual communication through an optical fiber if the repeaters can be provided with unaffected power. Have they been build with provision for such an occurrence?
    The telegraph system affected by the Carrington event was affected in a manner similar to the way large power grids would be today. How would a modern telephone system be affected? I have no idea how much if any intercity communication is over physical wires, but I understand that optical cables are gradually moving out into local neighborhoods. How large can a local telephone area be before it will be significantly affected?

    Of course, there are many relevant questions about a nuclear EMP, but I do not have enough knowledge about them to even suggest the questions.

  55. _Jim says:

    Nitrogen, oxygen and argon, 99.99% of the atmosphere qualify as transparent gases.

    Eventually those ‘bump’ into a GHG like H2O … thereby transferring energy to molecule capable of doing ‘service’ in the IR bands … and of course there is ‘sensible’ heat transfer via the various defined ‘cells’ in the atmosphere (The Tropical, The Hadley, The Polar) moving warm air masses to the two poles …

  56. DirkH @1010 I agree .wijn shoutem………..

    Warmist
    Injecting
    Juvenile
    Nonsense and
    Shoutem.

  57. _Jim says:

    Donald Mitchell says September 22, 2013 at 10:21 am

    A long AC power transmission line will have …

    With a HVDC power transmission line, how are the vulnerabilities affected?

    Of course, they ‘island’ preventing the ‘setup’ for a disaster.

    With little to no knowledge of the historical or economic reasons for long-distance transport of electric power this gets difficult and perhaps lengthy (beyond the time limit anyone working in the industry is willing to contribute to this effort) to explain.

    A first step in this effort perhaps might begin here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/largest-space-weather-storm-in-at-least-four-years/#comment-602214

    Note in particular the PJM training material titled “Weather and Environmental
    Emergencies” intended for the system operators of electric transport/transmission systems:

    http://www.pjm.com/training/~/media/training/core-curriculum/ip-ops-101/ops101-weatheremer.ashx

    Hope this helps.

    _Jim

    .

  58. Doug Huffman says:

    Carrington EMP; voltage is not induced, current motion of electrons is induced.

    The demarcation of science from non-science induction nonsense is the topic of Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (as Logik der Forschung, English translation 1959).

  59. Don says:

    A year ago I knew nothing about climate other than what may have been in the news. (Scary thought.) Then stumbled onto a site I have now forgotten; perhps WUWT. Since then, have regularly perused WUWT, Climate Depot, Ice Cap and others. Guess I am a little smarter than a year ago. At least I do more reading on climate subjects than my former state governor, Christine Gregoire, a career politician who delivered one of those “the science is settled” speeches before she left office.
    Anyway, being associated with our naval service prompts me to send a “Bravo Zulu” to Anthony, and all of the other posters and commenters for what you do.
    Don

  60. rtj1211:

    In your post at September 22, 2013 at 10:19 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423677
    you say

    My judgement is that there are three key politicising events taking place in IPCC reports:

    1. Deciding which contributions to seek out and which to omit.
    2. Deciding how to ‘simplify’ the inevitably complex detail of the scientific submissions into a digestible political form.
    3. Claiming that the science, which is always a best estimate within a framework of uncertainty, is gospel truth.

    Sorry, but those three items are merely the main ways that the IPCC fulfils its political objective.

    The IPCC is a political tool with the stated purpose of conducting pseudoscience.
    This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern its work. These are stated at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    Near its beginning it says

    ROLE
    2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
    The IPCC exists to provide
    (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
    And
    (b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation”.

    Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation”.

    This is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions.

    Richard

  61. One often-unsaid aspect of the public discussion on whether human-induced climate change is real, is ideology. Several months ago, the University of Kentucky hosted of forum on climate change with three excellent speakers who were all self-described conservatives. Liberals reported how they better understand that there are thoughtful conservative perspectives on, and solutions to, climate change, thus allowing for a broadened public discussion. In turn, conservatives in attendance learned the same thing. You can watch the recording of this event at http://bit.ly/135gvNa. The starting time for each speaker is noted at this page, so you can listen to the speakers of greatest interest to you.

  62. littlepeaks says:

    Anyone check the National Hurricane Center page lately?
    States: There are no tropical cyclones in the Atlantic at this time.
    There are no tropical cyclones in the Eastern Pacific at this time.
    They are tracking a low pressure area in the Gulf, SE of TX. It says:
    THIS SYSTEM HAS A LOW CHANCE…NEAR 0 PERCENT…OF BECOMING A TROPICAL
    CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS…AND A LOW CHANCE…NEAR 0
    PERCENT…OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 5 DAYS.
    Those people must be bored out of their minds. It appears they are tracking clouds.

  63. Gary says:

    My open thread comment is another “weather is not climate” comment, because I’m a layman and only understand what I see and feel. Dang it, it’s been chilly for September! We’re getting repeat 40s here in North Arkansas, and in September. After a lackluster summer with people wondering where the heck the dog days of July and August went, now we are enjoying blissful and perfect September days. Nothing but sunshine and blue skies, mid 70s and low humidity. But the social networks are socked with comments about digging out the pajamas and flipping the thermostats over. Please give me a nickel for every time I read of a friend or family member cooking up the hot cocoa or test firing the wood stoves at night and early morning. I’ll share the profits with charity – promise. Why is this news? Because all this talk is nearly a full month early compared to autumns in the past 10-15 years or so. Now where’s that sweater mom bought me…

  64. Bob says:

    Since this is an open thread, a post on the life and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson –

    Who was
    Thomas Jefferson ?
    Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

    At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.

    At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

    At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

    At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

    At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

    At 23, started his own law practice.

    At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

    At 31, wrote the widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of British America ? And retired from his law practice.

    At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

    At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence .

    At 33, took three years to revise Virginia ‘s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

    At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

    At 40, served in Congress for two years.

    At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

    At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

    At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

    At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

    At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .

    At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation’s size.

    At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

    At 65, retired to Monticello .

    At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

    At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

    At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

    Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

    John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: “This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
    “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

    If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

  65. phlogiston says:

    On business in Riyadh again. In my hotel room I dipped into the Koran which takes the place of the Gideon bible in US / European hotels.

    Here is Surah-34 Saba, 48: ” Say, indeed. my Lord projects the truth, Knower of the unseen”.

    So where did the curious term “projection” by climate models rather than the more expected “prediction”? Answer – its Islamic! It comes from the Koran. “Say, indeed, the IPCC projects the truth, Knower of the unseen.”

  66. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 22, 2013 at 8:11 am

    John Whitman:

    re your post at September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am.

    Science and pseudoscience have often been discussed on WUWT.

    Science is an attempt to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which contradicts existing understanding(s) and amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in the light of obtained information.

    Pseudoscience accepts an existing understanding as being ‘true’ then seeking information which supports the understanding while ignoring and/or rejecting information which contradicts existing understanding.

    Richard

    - – - – - – -

    richardscourtney,

    Thoughtful responses. Thanks.

    Your idea on pseudo-science, however can be viewed as biased science awaiting the scientific self correction process to play out, but still within the historic experience and relevant purview of science. If viewed that way it still leaves the question open as to what pseudo-science is as it exists independent of science.

    I suggest pseudo-science is that which merely mimics scientific processes / scientists / scientific vocabulary. It is ceremony, ritual, acting, ‘going through the motions’. The intent of pseudo-science in that case is to gain the benefits of appearing to be scientists or appearing to have scientific products. Would that view of pseudo-science bear on what the IPCC is doing?

    Interesting question.

    John

  67. Gunga Din says:

    john piccirilli says:
    September 22, 2013 at 9:26 am

    ==================================================
    8-)

  68. Gunga Din says:

    DirkH says:
    September 22, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Wijnand Schoutem says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am
    “You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.”

    Notice that this commenter talks to no one even though his comment is made to look like an answer to someone. I think he’s a renewable energy lobbyist spambot.

    =========================================================================
    Possible but he may just have stopped by. His goal is admirable. (Independence from Arab oil.) His means is laughable. (“Green” alternatives.)
    Maybe he’ll check out the site more and learn why I said that? We can only hope.

  69. John Whitman:

    I am replying to your post at September 22, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423797

    Your reply to says

    Your idea on pseudo-science, however can be viewed as biased science awaiting the scientific self correction process to play out, but still within the historic experience and relevant purview of science. If viewed that way it still leaves the question open as to what pseudo-science is as it exists independent of science.

    I suggest pseudo-science is that which merely mimics scientific processes / scientists / scientific vocabulary. It is ceremony, ritual, acting, ‘going through the motions’. The intent of pseudo-science in that case is to gain the benefits of appearing to be scientists or appearing to have scientific products. Would that view of pseudo-science bear on what the IPCC is doing?

    No. That is wrong on all counts.

    I remind that I said in my post you have replied

    Science is an attempt to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which contradicts existing understanding(s) and amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in the light of obtained information.

    Pseudoscience accepts an existing understanding as being ‘true’ then seeking information which supports the understanding while ignoring and/or rejecting information which contradicts existing understanding.

    Simply, pseudoscience is the antithesis of science. But pseudoscience pretends to be science, and pseudoscientists often think they are scientists: (If you don’t believe that pseudoscientists often think they are scientists then ask an astrologer or a homeopath.)

    Science starts from uncertainty and attempts reduce it because science recognises that all knowledge is uncertain.
    Pseudoscience starts from certainty and attempts bolster acceptance of it.

    So, both obtain and use evidence but they use it in different ways for different purposes.

    Science is – given sufficient time and effort – self-correcting because it seeks to overturn existing understanding and to reduce uncertainty.
    Pseudoscience is immune to scientific correction because an asserted certainty cannot be corrected.and has no uncertainty to be reduced. However, pseudoscientists act to reduce the uncertainty of the information it uses to bolster acceptance of the certainty.

    The IPCC exists to conduct pseudoscience. Indeed, it is tasked to do that. I explain this in my post at September 22, 2013 at 11:08 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423732

    Richard

  70. Gunga Din says:

    Bob says:
    September 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423794

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    ========================================================================
    I love that quote. I came across it years ago and would often repeat it.
    Unfortunately, I could never find documentation that he actually said it. I heard as a quote from a Virginia newspaper arguing for the adoption of The Bill of Rights. If you have documentation, please tell me.
    Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea.

  71. _Jim says:

    Bob says September 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

    If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

    All well and good Bob, until you reach that last quote, which is in contention and has earned the label “spurious quote”. See such sites as: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation which concludes, in part:

    Earliest known appearance in print: 1933
    Other attributions: None known.
    Status: This quotation is at least partly spurious; see comments below.

    Comments: This quotation is often cited as being in an 1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, and/or “later published in The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809).”

    The first part of the quotation (“If the American people … on the continent their Fathers conquered”) has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson’s writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise.

    FWIW, Snopes also concurs on the “spurious” nature of this supposed quote.

    .

  72. Saw an interesting article about an elephant in England twice the size of today’s animal found with flint tools all about. They dated it to several warm inter-glacials back. They allow it must have been warmer then, how warm?
    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2013/sep/13_171.shtml
    ==========
    Humans in England 420,000 years ago! Or hominins anyway….may be talking about Homo heidelbergensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis These guys were all over the place.
    =================
    “…rhinoceros and lion, Barbary macaque…” It was a lot warmer then. My guess is the thermal neutral point for macaques is about the same as for humans and chips…around 82F…feels perfectly comfortable, nude, in the shade.
    ==================
    During the Pleistocene, Barbary macaques inhabited the Mediterranean coasts and Europe, reaching Italy, Hungary, Spain, Portugal and France, and as far north as Germany and the British Isles.[23] The species decreased with the arrival of the Ice Age, becoming extinct in the Iberian Peninsula 30,000 years ago.[24]
    =================
    The last wild population in Europe is that of Gibraltar…average annual temperature is about 21.8 °C (70 °F) during the day and 15.1 °C (59.2 °F) at night

    England now…average annual temperature is about 13.5 °C during the day and 5.9 °C at night
    []
    =====================
    So, yeah, it was much warmer in England back then. Maybe around 10°C.

  73. Delete “. °C (59 °F) at night”

  74. Gunga Din says:

    Some of you have seen this before. Forgive the repeat but here’s my need to apologize to Robert Frost.

    Chopping Down Trees One Snowy Evening
    by Michael Mann

    What tree this is, I think I know.
    It grew in Yamal some time ago.
    Yamal 06 I’m placing here
    In hopes a hockey stick will grow.

    But McIntyre did think it queer
    No tree, the stick did disappear!
    Desparate measures I did take
    To make that stick reappear.

    There were some corings from a lake.
    And other data I could bake.
    I’ll tweek my model more until
    Another hockey stick I’ll make!

    I changed a line into a hill!
    I can’t say how I was thrilled!
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

  75. joshuah says:

    I’m working on a site that will collect and analyze publicly available weather data. I’m starting with arctic ice and plan to add more data sources and forms of analysis as I have time. I’m also tracking when these data sources “adjust” their numbers and plan to add the ability to compare old versions of data as well. I’ll also eventually get around to making it look prettier. Here is an early taste of the project so far.

    http://climatechangedebates.com/arctic-sea-ice-stats.php

  76. dbstealey says:

    John Whitman says:

    “If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.”

    The difference is testability. To be testable, a hypothesis must be measurable. If it is not measurable, then it begins and ends at the ‘conjecture’ stage of the Scientific Method.

    Catastrophic AGW [or plain old AGW, for that matter] is not measurable. It is not testable, therefore it is not even a hypothesis. It is simply an untestable conjecture. An opinion, unsupported by verifiable, testable measurements.

    The entire work product of the IPCC is based upon an untestable, unmeasurable opinion, and every IPCC prediction made regarding AGW has failed. In any other scientific field, such a universal failure rate would force a total re-examination of the original conjecture. But with so much tax loot at stake, honest science is rejected. Easy money has corrupted the process, the science, the scientists, and the always-greedy government entities.

  77. Pamela Gray says:

    John, I think I know what you are getting at. Pseudo science is what the group of ENSO prediction scientists do to come up with their human “consensus”. At first it was just a seat of the pants guess based on group consensus opinion. But then reported under “sciencey” titles and even put into the ENSO prediction graph. They have since tried to nail down a more objective “consensus”. I can see though the pseudo science title being appropriate to this example. They have not “done” science to come up with this consensus. It has not been subjected to peer review. It is has not been subjected to controlled tests. Yet it is placed on the ENSO prediction graph along side the other data obtained from statistical and dynamical ENSO model outputs as if it shares the degree of work the models have been put through.

  78. DirkH says:

    Gunga Din says:
    September 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    “Possible but he may just have stopped by. His goal is admirable. (Independence from Arab oil.) His means is laughable. (“Green” alternatives.)
    Maybe he’ll check out the site more and learn why I said that? We can only hope.”

    Well but he “answered” to no one. I have seen this behaviour by “warmists” many times. Their comments look incoherent, as if they are copied and pasted from what they have; as if they are a Markov chain automaton or a chatbot. If you engage with one of them you have sort of the feeling of a conversation but it also feels eerily wrong. I say “warmists” because they’re probably programs, not real warmists.

    This makes it pointless to even engage one of them online as it’s in most cases just a waste of time; talking to a script.

  79. Hlaford says:

    As a non-meteorological scientist, I hardly found myself competent participating in any of the real discussions here, yet pseudo-science thing got me going.
    I find a great correlation between gravy train disciplines and their attachment to “scientific consensus” garbage concept oxymoron. As if the woozle effect is a scientific proof of anything.
    All of these disciplines have a common denominator: blame. In this case, blame mankind for climate that’s not happening.
    Another common denominator is political in-correctness of the non-consensus standpoint.
    Yet another common denominator is amalgamation of consensus lot with politics.

    It’s not that I have some approach to dispelling any of the consensus myths.

  80. jorgekafkazar says:

    Peter Crawford says: “As a megalomaniac with a secret base within Holyhead Mountain (henchmen, helicopters, geezers with steel teeth, I got all that)…”

    Peter, Peter, Peter! We have to move with the times. They’re henchpersons, now! (I’ll let the geezer gaffe go, for now.)

  81. Wijnand Schoutem says:

    I was just on my iphone and hit the wrong button. Anyway, 0% warming or alarming here…. It’s just annoying to see that some here link green tech to AGW. That makes no sense. I see a true economic reason here that we need renewables in 10 or 20 years and that reason has nothing to do with AGW.

  82. Roger Sowell says:

    Rebuttal to RichardSCourtney, at September 22, 2013 at 10:12 am, re concentrations of energy.

    Sadly, you are very much mistaken on this. It makes zero difference whether an energy source is dilute, concentrated, or a middling value. The only things that matter are economics and toxic contaminants.

    Economics is why it is better for a remote ranch to use windmills to pump its water for livestock, and for irrigation, instead of paying the cost to run electric wires to the ranch. The “dilute energy source”, wind, is far more economic.

    Furthermore, fissile nuclear fuel, uranium, is more “energy dense” than is coal or natural gas, yet power from nuclear power plants costs almost 6 times greater. Energy density is meaningless.

  83. Gunga Din says:

    DirkH says:
    September 22, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Gunga Din says:
    September 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    “Possible but he may just have stopped by. His goal is admirable. (Independence from Arab oil.) His means is laughable. (“Green” alternatives.)
    Maybe he’ll check out the site more and learn why I said that? We can only hope.”

    Well but he “answered” to no one. I have seen this behaviour by “warmists” many times. Their comments look incoherent, as if they are copied and pasted from what they have; as if they are a Markov chain automaton or a chatbot. If you engage with one of them you have sort of the feeling of a conversation but it also feels eerily wrong. I say “warmists” because they’re probably programs, not real warmists.

    This makes it pointless to even engage one of them online as it’s in most cases just a waste of time; talking to a script.

    ====================================================================
    4+ decades ago I had job where I called people trying to sell them something. We did have a script to read and scripted answers to objections. (We called businesses from the yellow pages, not homes so please don’t hate me.8-)
    I guess computer programs can do that now. You could well be right. If it was person and not a bot, I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

  84. _Jim says:

    I don’t know how widespread/if this has ‘made the rounds’ in world of other WUWTers, but this was fairly well done and was surprised to see the ACLU sponsoring it as well. It is SFU (suitable for work) although it does have audio:.

    “Ordering Pizza under the new Health Laws” (Boehner-Care?) Parody
    https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pizza/images/screen.swf

    .

  85. Roger Sowell:

    re your post at September 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm.

    If you had bothered to read the link I provided (here it is again
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf )
    you would have read the example you cite was provided by me of a small niche market.

    You clearly have no understanding of the economics. Read the link.

    Richard

  86. Wijnand Schoutem:

    At September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm you say

    I see a true economic reason here that we need renewables in 10 or 20 years and that reason has nothing to do with AGW.

    Really?! Please state that “true economic reason” because I cannot imagine what it could be, alien invasion from Mars?

    Richard

  87. Gunga Din says:

    Wijnand Schoutem says:
    September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    I was just on my iphone and hit the wrong button. Anyway, 0% warming or alarming here…. It’s just annoying to see that some here link green tech to AGW. That makes no sense. I see a true economic reason here that we need renewables in 10 or 20 years and that reason has nothing to do with AGW.

    ========================================================================
    If they were really viable then they wouldn’t need government to subsidize them. Plenty of people who are willing to risk an honest buck to make more honest bucks would be doing it. Al Gore Michael Mann George Bush Obama Dr. Ball
    (I just threw them in to see if we get a bot-like response.)

  88. Wijnand Schoutem says:

    [quote]Really?! Please state that “true economic reason” because I cannot imagine what it could be, alien invasion from Mars?[/quote]

    Just compare your energybill to the one you payed 10 years ago. Fossil fuel is finitive and will run out one time. We are already printing money to pay for those barrels of oil? There is a reason for the economic downturn…. Importing uranium might not be an option since the country’s holding it are not very friendly.

    As far of the paper … Its all about co2 reduction and useless.. All economics will change when the price of oil in 2016 will be around 200 USD a barrel..

    Ohh well enjoy yourself .. It’s almost midnight here so i am out of here…Keep smiling when you are paying 5 Usd+ a gallon? :) just don’t blame it on me when i have some solar panels on my roof to lower my bill.. It’ll be high enough since it will get pretty cold here in NW-Europe and the gas will not be cheap …. When demand is high mr. Putin ain’t our friend:(

  89. Roger Sowell says:

    @RichardSCourtney, I clearly have a fine grasp of economics, which is why I refuted your writings above.

    It is of zero consequence what the “energy density” is of any fuel or energy source. If you understood economics, you would recognize that.

    You might try telling the many thousands of sailors who use a small wind-powered generator to charge up their batteries, that wind is too dilute and cannot be used to generate power. I’d love to hear them laugh when you tell them.

    While you are telling people your falsehoods, you can also come to California and tell the utilities your oft-repeated falsehood: Wind turbines provide zero useful power at any time. I believe I have the quote from you accurate, if not word for word, it is accurate in content.

    Earlier just today, California’s wind-turbines were producing 3,000 MW of power. At the moment, they are producing just over 2,400 MW. Please tell the California utilities that that is not useful, as you have so often stated.

  90. John Whitman says:

    Pamela Gray on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 am

    John, I prefer well-done science versus poorly-done science. Even science that holds to the null hypothesis, ie: that Earth is a highly variable planet with multiple intrinsic random-walk oscillations teleconnecting between oceanic and atmospheric semi-permanent systems can be poorly done.

    And

    Pamela Gray on September 22, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    John, I think I know what you are getting at. Pseudo science is what the group of ENSO prediction scientists do to come up with their human “consensus”. At first it was just a seat of the pants guess based on group consensus opinion. But then reported under “sciencey” titles and even put into the ENSO prediction graph. They have since tried to nail down a more objective “consensus”. I can see though the pseudo science title being appropriate to this example. They have not “done” science to come up with this consensus. It has not been subjected to peer review. It is has not been subjected to controlled tests. Yet it is placed on the ENSO prediction graph along side the other data obtained from statistical and dynamical ENSO model outputs as if it shares the degree of work the models have been put through.

    - – - – - – - -

    Pamela Gray ,

    Sorry a little late returning your comment. My 13 month old grandson & his two similar aged cousins are babysitting me. : )

    Thanks for your thoughts. Always appreciated.

    I suggest we need to cast the net wide to include within science the process of winnowing out what is proposed as science but was found misrepresented, bad or even biased. That is a view of the sausage making reality of the scientific endeavor. The messy part is within it.

    I suggest there is something that is ‘pseudo’ that is not even within the wide cast net I just described. It is an irrationalism dressed up wearing the cloak of rationalism in order to gain respectability.

    As to your ENSO idea, do you think it fits my just offered suggestions?

    Do my suggestions match with anything in the IPCC processes? I think there is some fit. Do you?

    I see that richardscourtney has a comment critical of my suggestions. I will in due course respond to him and all others. Just slow.

    John

  91. M Courtney says:

    Every seeker of knowledge has to balance two conflicting norms for their scientific community.
    1) The need to eliminate false knowledge by challenging assumptions.
    2) The need to defend your premises against challenge in order to build testable hypotheses.

    AGW is a rare scientific hypothesis because it has an exceptionally strong suit in the second norm. It is desirable for tax-raising authorities to fund that premise. It is desirable for those who fear the future to defend that premise.
    Above all, it is desirable for those who earn their living from reporting on environmental issues to defend the CO2 governs global temperature meme. So everything the public hears from the Environmental Journalist gatekeepers is “The end is nigh!”

    This is a rare failing of the scientific method. Lysenkoism and eugenics also had such support.
    But it doesn’t require a great conspiracy to let such errors propagate. It is merely the normal scientific process. Unfortunately, the scientific process doesn’t work in these rare circumstances where the enabling-funds are not related to seeking knowledge.

  92. ntesdorf says:

    GlynnMhor, “Mediaeval Climatic Optimum”, I’ll remember that for future discussions with any true believers of CAGW. “Optimum” will disturb them no end.

  93. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Jeff Alberts on September 22, 2013 at 9:39 am:

    I’m continuing this discussion here instead of going OT in another thread.

    Which made no sense as it was an established sub-topic coming from the original post so I replied there.

    Why did you want to slaughter such copious quantities of hapless electrons with profligate quoting? We only have a limited supply of them and soon we’ll have to start rationing, just as Greenpeace for confirmation.

  94. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Sowell;
    Earlier just today, California’s wind-turbines were producing 3,000 MW of power. At the moment, they are producing just over 2,400 MW. Please tell the California utilities that that is not useful, as you have so often stated.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Pffft. Absent subsidies and regulatory requirements, power utilities would use precisely zero wind power. It is not only uneconomical, but due to large variability it requires substantial standby conventional capacity which in turn cannot be run efficiently because highly variable load is the biggest challenge there is to running efficiently, and power plant life is also dramatically shortened by highly variable loads. The net effect is higher costs and higher emissions, so richardscourtney is wrong. Windmills are no useless, they are worse than useless.

    As for your statement regarding energy density and economics, one drives the other and without density you cannot have economic efficiency, no matter how much you think you know about economics.

  95. Roger Sowell:

    In response to your reply to me I refer you to the comment of davidmhoffer at September 22, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423926

    Richard

  96. John Whitman says:

    rtj1211 on September 22, 2013 at 10:19 am

    @John Whitman on September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am

    My judgement is that there are three key politicising events taking place in IPCC reports:

    1. Deciding which contributions to seek out and which to omit.
    2. Deciding how to ‘simplify’ the inevitably complex detail of the scientific submissions into a digestible political form.
    3. Claiming that the science, which is always a best estimate within a framework of uncertainty, is gospel truth.

    IN my judgement, the following are key places to be skeptical:
    1. Investing in computer models designed to fit the data already acquired a predictive capability.
    2. Being obsessed with 150 years of climate history rather than 150 million years.
    3. Continuing to rely on thermometer readings with all the attendant uncertainties, inconsistencies and lack of coverage uniformity, given the vastly superior radiosonde- and satellite data sets now of 60 and 35 years length respectively.

    - – - – - – -

    rtj1211,

    I take your comment to mean the IPCC is not scientific in purpose but is principally politic. There are many who agree with that.

    Of the things the IPCC publicly claims are their science processes / products, are any pseudo-scientific? And what is pseudo-science as opposed to science?

    I have made the suggestion in previous comments on this thread that science is an activity of rationalism and pseudo-science is irrationalism pretending to be rationalism.

    In that respect, I think the IPCC does have some pseudo-science in its processes and products. Do you?

    John

  97. Wijnand Schoutem:

    I am replying to your long and rambling post at September 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423908

    My energy bills have little to do with true costs. They are inflated by subsidies to – and additional costs of – renewables. I already pay the equivalent of US$5 per gallon of petrol (i.e. American translation, gasoline) because 80% of the price in the UK is tax.

    The coal price and cost is at a century low according to the IEA. Fracking has dramatically reduced the cost of producing oil and gas. The existence of the LSE process for synthetic crude from coal constrains the maximum long-term price of oil.

    Imported oil has NOTHING to do with the “economic turndown”, and only 1% of electricity is generated from oil so renewables would not noticeably affect oil imports.

    Unless you live far from the grid your solar panels will cost a small fortune compared to electricity from the grid when subsidies are removed.

    And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.

    Richard

  98. herkimer says:

    I don’t know if anyone else noticed a statement in the CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED 2, PHYSICAL SCIENCE report issued in September 2013 by the SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT from Heartland .Org in their Executive Summary , for Chapter 3 , Solar Forcing of Climate which reads :

    “The sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed Twentieth century warming and perhaps more”

    Yet if anyone suggests that climate drives our weather or solar changes may be behind some of our recent climate changes , they are immediately jumped on by some regular solar bloggers . Weird or what?

    Maybe we could get the authors of the above report to post an article on their findings

    http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

  99. John Whitman:

    re your post at September 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm to rtj1211

    Debate consists of agreeing or disputing different arguments. It does not consist of ignoring refutations of an opinion and restating your disputed opinion.

    I replied to your mistaken assertion of what you think is pseudoscience, and for rtj1211 I posted the IPCC’s own stated “Role” which demonstrates its purpose is pure pseudoscience. Your post to rtj1211 ignores both those posts.

    You started debate of this subject so it would be helpful if you were to engage in the debate instead of merely iterating your disputed opinion. If you disagree with what I said then please say, but don’t pretend it was not said.

    Richard

  100. John Whitman says:

    dbstealey on September 22, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    @John Whitman

    The difference is testability. To be testable, a hypothesis must be measurable. If it is not measurable, then it begins and ends at the ‘conjecture’ stage of the Scientific Method.

    Catastrophic AGW [or plain old AGW, for that matter] is not measurable. It is not testable, therefore it is not even a hypothesis. It is simply an untestable conjecture. An opinion, unsupported by verifiable, testable measurements.

    The entire work product of the IPCC is based upon an untestable, unmeasurable opinion, and every IPCC prediction made regarding AGW has failed. In any other scientific field, such a universal failure rate would force a total re-examination of the original conjecture. But with so much tax loot at stake, honest science is rejected. Easy money has corrupted the process, the science, the scientists, and the always-greedy government entities.

    - – - – - – - –

    dbstealey,

    Nice to hear from you. Thanks for your comment.

    You have described eloquently what is the nature of science including the criteria for self adjusting from the very frequently proposed science that is eventually found to be insufficiently based (wrong).

    Pseudo-science, if conceptualized as not within a very very broad framework of science, is not in the purview of the rational / logical but is within the irrational / non-logical. I think it pretends to be science (rational / logical) in order to gain credibility that it otherwise cannot achieve.

    I find that kind of ‘pseudo’ within the IPCC processes to some extent.

    John

  101. John says:

    In the New Zealand Herald today. Certainly looks like we are doomed!!!!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11128552

  102. Mr Green Genes says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    (to Wijnand Schoutem)

    And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.
    =====================================================
    I’d guess probably Holland with a name like his.

  103. u.k.(us) says:

    Nice view of an ice breaker? here:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/18.jpg

    Time was 05:35:26 Sept. 21 (don’t know if that link updates or what ?).

  104. CD (@CD153) says:

    Wijnand Schoutem says:
    September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    “Just compare your energy bill to the one you payed 10 years ago. Fossil fuel is [finite] and will run out one time. ”

    Sorry sir, but again you are not fully understanding the issues with so-called “renewables” here. Solar panels and wind mills are manufactured with raw materials like silver and rare earth elements (REEs) which are extracted from the Earth much the same as fossil fuels are. Therefore, our ability to tap into solar and wind energy is just as finite as fossil fuels. Given that silver and REEs are used in many other applications (weapons systems for national defense, cell phones, etc…), wind turbines and solar panels have to compete with other manufactured goods and equipment for those raw materials. And that, for all I know, might drive up their costs in the years ahead. Furthermore, the mining of those raw materials is quite polluting, and solar panels and turbines leave toxic waste behind during their manufacture and at their end-of-life. As best I know, there is currently no system in place to recycle or dispose of that waste.

    It is also my understanding that the electricity output for solar panels declines as they age, a problems nuclear and fossil fuel power plants don’t have (as best I know). Add to this Richard Courtney’s explanation (September 22nd, 10:12 am) for why the sun and wind are a poor source for energy to begin with, and the argument for wind and solar energy falls flat on its face. Read my lips Wijnand: nuclear is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation on a large scale. I have no problem with you wanting solar panels on your roof for whatever it’s worth to you, but wind and solar farms are another story altogether.

    You can go on believing what you want Wijnand, but the facts indisputably speak for themselves.

  105. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    - – - – - – -

    richardscourtney,

    Appreciate your interest in developing conceptions of pseudo-science.

    Please wait your turn. Your turn will come where I will respond to your latest comment(s). I am responding to each commenter in a seemly order. If that represents redundancy to you and if it isn’t timely enough for you, then it is entirely your prerogative to think so.

    Your turn will probably not be until tomorrow morning, getting close my retirement for the night here in northern NY state. : ) Sweet dreams.

    John

  106. Ric Werme says:

    Gunga Din says:
    September 22, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    Bob says:
    September 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423794

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    ========================================================================
    I love that quote. I came across it years ago and would often repeat it.
    Unfortunately, I could never find documentation that he actually said it. I heard as a quote from a Virginia newspaper arguing for the adoption of The Bill of Rights. If you have documentation, please tell me.
    Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea.

    Are you familiar with this item from the New Hampshire State Constitution?

    http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

    [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

    June 2, 1784

    Live Free or Die.

  107. Mario Lento says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:21 am
    Wijnand Schoutem:

    At September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am you assert

    You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.

    “Renewable energy is not climate”?
    Tell that to the politicians who are inflicting the damage and immense expense of wind, solar, and biofuels on us in the mistaken belief that such use will reduce CO2 emissions. In reality these expensive methods INCREASE CO2 emissions. See
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf

    If you want to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East then increase fracking for gas and oil.

    Richard
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Thank you richardscourtney. I’ll add to that stating that No, we do not NEED wind/solar/biofuels. Why would we NEED more expensive energy? And as richardscourtney points out, we need to extract more of the resources we have on FEDERAL lands. Right now, the green ilk prevent it so we need to buy energy from other countries. We have enough to last well into the next century… and by then, demand for alternative resources will make sense. But it does not make sense to force energy to be artificially much more expensive.

  108. R Courtney has made this point, but I’d state the difference between science and psuedo-science is that science makes predictions from theory then devises tests to determine whether the predictions are correct, and specifically to determine where the theory fails or is inadequate.

    Much of climate science falls short in this respect, by actively discouraging or preventing such testing, and by hiding or obfuscating results that show the theory has failed or is inadequate. The IPCC is just an extension of the climate science culture.

    Psuedo-science is activities that have the superficial form of science, but do not have the crucial component of endeavouring to establish where and how theory fails.

  109. Paraphrasing Feynman, Science is the distrust of experts. By extension then pseudo-science is following the herd. By this measure the consensus meme is profoundly anti-science

  110. Gunga Din says:

    Ric Werme says:
    September 22, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    Live Free or Die.

    ========================================================================
    Probably the best of all the State mottoes.

    I had read that before. I think it was when I lived in NH. Thanks for the refresher.

  111. Ipcc…5th ar…”extract co2 from atmosphere in order to bury it”..”.sprinkle atmosphere
    With particles to reflect radiation back into space..”
    Did not know report was a comedy

  112. Zeke says:

    Irving Langmuir on “pathological science” -

    “The characteristic symptoms of “pathological science” according to [Langmuir] are as follows: 1.) the maximum effect observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause; 2.) observations of the effect are near the threshold of human observations; 3.) there are claims of great accuracy; 4.) there are fantastic theories proposed to explain the effects that are contrary to experience; 5.) criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses; 6.) the ratio of supporters to the critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion, as the critics cannot reproduce the effects.” ~Dr. Beverly Rubek

  113. Gunga Din says:

    The top right sidebar

    The Maslowski Countdown
    Ice Free Arctic 2013September 22nd, 2013
    In 2007 Wieslaw Maslowski said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, and that “…you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Welcome to the “ice free Arctic” of 2013

    ===========================================================

    Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
    Should have melted
    Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
    He said it’d be so

    Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
    Wrong predictions, another one
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

  114. Brad Keyes says:

    Jeff Patterson
    “By this measure the consensus meme is profoundly anti-science”
    Extremely so.
    The moral idiot Naomi Oreskes has directly contradicted Feynman’s wisdom by claiming that,
    “What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”
    You cannot believe Oreskes and Feynman simultaneously. One of them has to go.

  115. Brad Keyes says:
    September 22, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    The moral idiot Naomi Oreskes has directly contradicted Feynman’s wisdom by claiming that,
    “What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”

    Not only idiotic but mathematically disprovable. Knowledge is gained in proportion to surprise. The experts, knowing everything already, are surprised by nothing.

  116. Another tidbit from information theory 101: Non-contingent systems (such as computer programs) cannot provide information gain.

  117. CD (@CD153) says:

    Roger Sowell says:

    “It is of zero consequence what the “energy density” is of any fuel or energy source. If you understood economics, you would recognize that.”
    **********
    Oh really? Roger, let’s look at some facts that you seem to have overlooked:

    How far back in time does the solar industry go here in the USA? At least to the 1950s, if not earlier: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf

    And how far back does the wind energy industry go in the U.S.? To about 1980 according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

    So the wind and solar energy industries here in the United States are many decades old (especially solar). With all those decades to develop the technology, what kind of inroads have they made in the energy market here in the U.S.? The government’s Energy Information Agency provides the answer:

    http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
    Nationally, solar only provides 1% and wind 3% of our electricity needs. Wow, I’m impressed…

    Now why do you suppose wind and solar have not made any large, meaningful inroads into the energy market after all those decades? My guess is because Richard Courtney is right….energy density DOES matter. His explanation on September 22nd at 10:12 AM is on the money.

    If the economics for solar and wind are so favorable, why does the federal government need to subsidize them and provide mandates for them? Because the economics for them are not there. I’d like to see the wind and solar energy industries go into panic mode someday when the federal government finally decides to pull the financial plug on them once and for all.

    I say this again: Nuclear is the only energy source that can displace all the electricity we get from fossil fuels. Its energy density is second to none…and that DOES matter.

    If you have an alternate explanation for the failure of wind and solar, please provide it….and cite your evidence.

    Kill wind turbines, not birds.

  118. Ben D says:

    john piccirilli says:
    September 22, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    Ipcc…5th ar…”.sprinkle atmosphere
    With particles to reflect radiation back into space..”
    Did not know report was a comedy.
    ——————————————-
    Realistic or not, this is not a new idea,…http://www.sitchin.com/

    © May 2009 Zecharia Sitchin

    “The audacious idea of protecting a planet thermally by creating a shield of particles in its upper atmosphere is not as revolutionary as it seems. It was, I wrote in my 1976 book The Twelfth Planet, exactly the reason why the Anunnaki – “Those who from Heaven to Earth came” – had come here some 450,000 year ago from their planet Nibiru.

    On Nibiru — ‘Planet X’ of our Solar System – the problem was the opposite one: Loss of internally generated heat due to a dwindling atmosphere, brought about by natural causes and nuclear wars. Nibiru’s scientists, I wrote, concluded that the only way to save life on their planet was to create a shield of gold particles in their upper atmosphere. It was in search of the needed gold that the “gods” of the ancient peoples had come to Earth. Basing my conclusions on Sumerian and other texts from the ancient Near East, I wrote that the Anunnaki began to arrive on Earth some 445,000 years ago, establishing settlements in the E.Din (later Mesopotamia) and mining gold in southeast Africa.

    As I have written in subsequent books, “modern science is only catching up with ancient knowledge.” The idea of ‘geo-engineering’ is borrowed from technologies of the Anunnaki. “

  119. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    Brad Keyes says:
    September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
    I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” He may still be mired in the skeptics-are-not-grasping-the-evidence preconception endemic to his profession, but he doesn’t lie about or censor what skeptics write on his blog. Therefore let’s not make the mistake of dismissing him as another Cook or Lewandowsky.

    (Kahan was recently rude, for no good reason, to Willis E., but apart from that he’s been a gentleman, as far as I can see.)

    Thanks for reading this plug—
    BK

    ==========================

    Brad, Please reconsider your support of this guy.

    “Positive, respectful communication”, what the hell are you talking about? Honestly?

    Having just read the thread in question(Kahan’s). I was floored by his behavior. I have not had a chance to reading all of the comments on this (WUWT) thread, but what struck me (jaw droppingly so) was that this guy almost unconciously was helping to make the exact point about climate scientist that Willis was making. (regarding trust, etc.)

    Willis, well done over there.

  120. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Could someone answer a simple question for me?

    When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?

    Eugene WR Gallun

  121. minarchist says:

    Nice piece in NRO, “The Climate-Change Circus”

    “In a way similar to that in which medieval astronomers rationalized planets’ being in the “wrong” position as they orbited the Earth, it can be argued that global warming has continued but that its effect has been temporarily offset by natural variability. There might well be something to this. The problem for the IPCC in using this argument is that it has consistently downplayed the role of natural variability, as MIT’s Richard Lindzen has pointed out. Indeed, British climate scientist Hubert Lamb, writing in 1982 before climate science became deeply politicized, wrote that it is impossible to define a range of natural variation of climate, since study of the longer-term climate record showed that the range of variation is itself subject to variation.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359034/climate-change-circus-rupert-darwall

  122. Zeke says:

    Inre: BenD

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

    May provide some perspective and overview of these groups, with a helpful table.

  123. dbstealey says:

    Roger Sowell says:

    “Energy density is meaningless.”

    You’re kidding. Right?

    1. Turn your car’s engine off, and put the transmission in neutral.

    2. Get out, and push your car about twenty miles down the road.

    3. Tell us again that “energy density is meaningless.” ☺

  124. Brad Keyes says:

    TomR,

    I can’t really dispute any of your post. I did, however, say “but apart from that…,” which I stand by.

    By the way, I’ve emailed Kahan asking “Why were you so rude to Willis, and what are you going to do about it?” I’ll let you know if I get any reply.

    And yes, Willis did indeed do a fine job of putting Kahan (back?) in his place.

  125. Bob Shapiro says:

    An Alarmist I correspond with sent this link to me.

    Does anybody know who the speaker is? Has there been a rebuttal to this as yet?

    Thanks.

  126. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Eugene WR Gallun on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm:

    Could someone answer a simple question for me?

    When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?

    Salty water can get colder than fresh before freezing.

    The sea ice is much less salty. When the sea water is cold enough for freezing, salt is removed from the freezing water, a process known as brine rejection.

    Thus the answer is, for the ice either in or near the water, the ice is the temperature of the sea water. Ice is the solid phase, you’ve specified ice is forming thus the sea water is colder than the ice’s melting point. The solid phase could be any temperature from freezing point to -100°C or even colder. With the ice in thermally-conductive contact with the sea water, it will be at the water’s temperature.

    Hope that helps.

  127. Ben D says:

    Zeke says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    Inre: BenD

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

    May provide some perspective and overview of these groups, with a helpful table.
    ————————————–
    Hi Zeke, there is no mention of Sitchin at that link?

    Besides, it is that this idea that was already put forward in his book (consider it sci fi if you like) prior to the IPCC suggesting such a program in a serious context that was the point.

  128. RACookPE1978 says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Could someone answer a simple question for me?

    When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?

    I fear you are just mistaken enough to be completely confused about sea ice formation in the Arctic.

    What courses have you had (and when ?) in thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, gas transfer and momentum, and thermal inertia and the states of matter? I ask because some (or all ) of these are involved as open ocean freezes into sea ice, but all of them can (almost) be ignored if terms past, say early high school or 8th grade physical science need to be the limit our our training. So, it can be explained very technically, or very basically, depending on what will help you most. 8<)

  129. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Bob Shapiro Sept 22 8:44 pm

    I watched the video. I thought the funniest part was towards the end where the speaker talks about the evidence filling in and forming a picture. And he shows us a picture filling in — forming an image.

    An image of what? Why, of Chicken Little!

    Someone who helped make that video stuck in their own little message. Just can’t trust those artists!

    Eugene WR Gallun

  130. Zeke says:

    Site policy does not allow me to respond to your comment. Your remarks had a great deal in common with the succinct definition on the Wikipedia article, not the list.

    I found it very helpful in understanding a great deal of what is on Youtube. Thank you.

    [What "site policy" do you think exists which would preclude your commenting on this video, or on comments about the video? Profanity? Mod]

  131. RACookPE1978 says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:51 pm (replying to)

    From Eugene WR Gallun on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm:

    Could someone answer a simple question for me?

    When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?

    Salty water can get colder than fresh before freezing.

    The sea ice is much less salty. When the sea water is cold enough for freezing, salt is removed from the freezing water, a process known as brine rejection.

    Thus the answer is, for the ice either in or near the water, the ice is the temperature of the sea water. Ice is the solid phase, you’ve specified ice is forming thus the sea water is colder than the ice’s melting point. The solid phase could be any temperature from freezing point to -100°C or even colder. With the ice in thermally-conductive contact with the sea water, it will be at the water’s temperature.

    But remember the heat flow direction: Heat is being lost FROM the salt water under the sea water-fresh water boundary layer, UP THROUGH the salt-water-fresher-water boundary layer, UP THROUGH the freshly formed ice UP THROUGH the older ice above the newest ice, then UP THROUGH the boundary layer between top-of-old-ice and the cold-air mass of the lower Arctic skies, then INTO the cold Arctic air. The ultimate heat sink (the “what is colder” is Gallun’s original question) is the “The Arctic air is always colder than the warmer ocean salt water IF ice is freezing. If ice is melting, the Arctic air may be, or may not be, warmer than the ocean water below the ice. The ice between the salt water and the Arctic atmosphere has varying temperature profiles depending on solar exposure, time-of-day and temperature-of-atmosphere and the wind speed. Sometimes heat flow up-to-down, sometimes it is down-to-up. “

    You are correct, if the ice is being formed, it is being formed UNDER the existing layer of sea ice once those tiny 6 to 8 inch dia platelets of circular ice freeze up. See (copywritten) photos at:
    http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-23443849/stock-photo-freezing-sea-ice-with-hydro-power-plant-smoke-in-background-halifax-nova-scotia-canada.html or
    http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-freezing-ice-image18339441

    That boundary water temperature (the mix of fresh water and salty water under the newly-freezing ice ) will be somewhere between 0.0 C (perfect fresh water) and -1.7 C degrees nominal freezing point of ocean water. As a good rule of thumb, the air temperature will be -4 to -6 degrees to freeze salt water over wide areas. Once that top tiny layer of ice freezes over, and thus once the ice insulates the ocean water from the Arctic air, the top-of-ice can be considered nearly the same as the Arctic atmosphere under normal 2-10 m/sec wind speeds and nominally flat ice. Under those “normal” conditions, the top of ice is -4 to -6 degrees, and the bottom-of-ice becomes ocean water temperature: Measurements inside ice field openings show that the water temperature is 1.5 to 2.0 C, sometimes as much as 3 C. Further from the ice (100 – 500 km’s) the open ocean temperatures are 3-4-5 C.

  132. Ben D says:

    That;s fine Zeke, and btw, I should have made it clearer that it was a direct quote from the author,on that link…

  133. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Kadaka (KDKnoebel) 8:51 pm

    Thank you for your kind reply. Perhaps I need to rephrase my question slightly — though you answered what i asked admirably.

    I assume this — that dropping air temperature causes surface water temperature to drop to the point where it turns into ice. Is that correct?

    Ice them forms and blocks the water below from contact with the colder air. It is now the surface of the ice that is influenced by the air and the surface of the ice would drop to the temperature of the air. The bottom of the ice would be at the temperature of the salt water. It would seem to me that the top of the ice would need be colder than the bottom of the ice if the ice would grow thicker. As a non-scientist i would like to say that “cold must travel down through the ice and cause more water to freeze” but instead will say that there must be heat loss from the sea water to the air through the ice.

    My thinking is that when ice is forming the “average” temperature of the ice is less than the water below it. The average temperature of the ice is also greater than the air above it.

    Is any of that correct.

    My real interest lies in trying to understand why (up to this year) their has been less ice in the arctic. Air temperature has remained higher than normal? Would that do it? Actually I sort of like the idea of a change in ocean currents bringing in warmer water. (But would that induced warmer water be less salty?)

    Investigating your own ideas is how learning starts for many people. Its egocentric I admit. You throw your untutored mind against the giants. “Well, lets see which one of us is right, you who are all the experts, or me.” Rarely does the little guy win — usually he just learns stuff even if it is only to shut his mouth. But that too improves the world.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  134. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @RACookPE1978 on September 22, 2013 at 9:33 pm:

    Wow, you sure overthink things.

    Embed a thermometer in a chunk of freshwater ice. Put the ice in a bowl of seawater at -1°C, chosen because seawater freezes at -2°C. Place bowl in freezer at -1°C. Then ignore it for an hour for equalization.

    What’s the thermometer reading? It can’t be above -1°C, the temperature of the seawater, no source of energy. Can’t be below -1°C, it will absorb thermal energy from the water if there’s a difference.

    What’s left other than the freshwater ice being the temperature of the seawater?

    What happens when ice is being made, the water and freezer temperature is -2°C or colder? There’s some latent heat released from the freezing, which is lost to to the seawater and freezer, since it’s the process of loosing that thermal energy that causes the freezing.

    So again, the ice will be the temperature of the seawater.

    I’ll try to find a half hour soon to wade through your comment, see if you found a way to defeat basic thermal theory and the general properties of the solid phase of matter.

  135. RACookPE1978 says:

    Ah, but your answer lies here: “Put the ice in a bowl of seawater at -1°C, chosen because seawater freezes at -2°C. Place bowl in freezer at -1°C. Then ignore it for an hour for equalization.”

    You have – with that statement – exactly set the equilibrium conditions so that atmospheric air temperature (the freezer at equilibrium) IS holding the air, the ice, the semi-salty water (not shaken, not stirred, not moving!) and the “original” salty ocean water all at -1.0 C.

    Under those very precise conditions – excepting the slower movement of the salinity-driven expulsion of high-salt water, medium-salt-water and fresh water at the ice-water boundary at the bottom – you may maintain the system as described.

    Then again, I can create and maintain a super-saturated solution of many substances in pure water under laboratory conditions. Disturbed immediately when I bump the lab glass or drop a single small crystal into the super-saturated solution. This doesn’t mean that a super-saturated solution “can’t exist”. Does it mean that “Crystals will always form when the saturation curve is exceeded.” Neither. you just have to define your conditions.

    Doesn’t make the “ideal” saturation curves wrong, you just have to define the conditions as “lab bench” or “Antarctic” 8<)

  136. Robert Clemenzi says:

    Richard111 says:
    September 22, 2013 at 9:12 am

    Question from a baffled layman. How does a transparent gas cool down after it has been warmed by conduction from the surface? Nitrogen, oxygen and argon, 99.99% of the atmosphere qualify as transparent gases. Everyone says warmed air rises and cools. Does it really? Where did the energy go?

    That is an excellent question!

    The warm air rises and cools adiabatically until it is the same temperature as the air already at some higher level. As this occurs, the energy doesn't "go anywhere", it just spreads out a bit, which, in turn, causes the temperature to go down. Even though the heat spreads out, it doesn't go away. In order to keep the planet cool, "greenhouse gases" radiate the heat to space – nitrogen, oxygen and argon are IR transparent and not able to do that. Water vapor is the primary gas that cools the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere and mesosphere).

    Because CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, changing the amount available (either an increase or a decrease) will not change the amount of heat released toward space from the troposphere.

  137. RACookPE1978 says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says:
    September 22, 2013 at 10:40 pm (replying to)

    Kadaka (KDKnoebel) 8:51 pm

    ….
    I assume this — that dropping air temperature causes surface water temperature to drop to the point where it turns into ice. Is that correct?

    ….

    My real interest lies in trying to understand why (up to this year) their has been less ice in the arctic. Air temperature has remained higher than normal? Would that do it? Actually I sort of like the idea of a change in ocean currents bringing in warmer water. (But would that induced warmer water be less salty?)

    Please look at the WUWT Sea Ice pages, looking in particular at the DMI air temperature record for 80 north latitude (the “edge” of the sea ice during most years) for the years 1959 through 2013. All data is at the website, linked to the plot shown each day for the DMI temperatures.

    you will find that Arctic air temperatures at 80 north – where the sea ice will either melt or freeze – is very constant EVERY YEAR at +3.0 degrees C. It has never gotten higher, very seldom getting lower – though this year, the 80 degree north latitude air temperature never once got even up the “average” +3.0 degrees C over the entire ice melt season!

    In 2010, a WUWT user plotted all summer 80 north latitude air temperatures fro 1959 through 2010. The result? Summer time temperatures in the high Arctic (far away from any land areas!) – consistently declined over the entire period that CO2 was increasing. Further, the closer one plotted summertime temperatures towards the 2010, the hotter summer were above 80 north.

  138. Robert Clemenzi says:

    What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!

  139. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    Brad, Thanks for the the reply.

    I must say that you have fair with your replys. Full credit to you..

    That whole exchange with Willis and Kahan struck me as very odd.

    Anyway, I’ll watch for updates.

    Enjoy.

  140. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Robert Clemenzi on September 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm:

    What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!

    That showed up when the site was briefly upgraded to WordPress Enterprise, it’s an available feature with paid hosting but not with the free blog space. The upgrade wasn’t working out, site regressed to previous state, the preview feature went away.

    Which was fine by me, as it didn’t display the line spacing for me as it showed up after posting. My normal Preview was superior. Which was one of the nice features of CA Assistant, which works on WordPress blogs. Preview button, formatting help, it’s very versatile.

    Click the link, follow the directions, you’ll have a very nice Preview function.

  141. Richard111 says:

    Thanks to Bill Church: September 22, 2013 at 9:48 am
    And thanks to _Jim: September 22, 2013 at 10:16 am
    Nice graphical chart and comments _Jim. Seems to agree with what I have been able to study.
    These studies I’ve done tell me that any substance able to radiate IR proportional to its
    local temperature are unable to absorb those same IR bands but they can, if it is within
    their IR range, absorb higher frequency/shorter wavelength IR and thus warm up.
    The rate of warming and cooling is easily calculated if the mass, heat capacity and total
    surface area of the substance is known.
    My calculations tell me there is ~6kg of CO2 in a 1 metre square column of air. The CO2
    is spread evenly up the column and aquires the local temperature of the column via
    conduction which I understand is collisions with other atmospheric molecules in the order
    of billions of collisions per second.
    Boltzman distribution tells me peak radiation for the 15 micron band is -79C, 214K. Thus
    every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is warmer than that and since every CO2 molecule
    is effectively on the surface of that mass of 6kg will be radiating in the 15 micron band.
    When will any CO2 molecule be in a condition to absorb a photon in the 13 to 17 micron
    band and pass that ‘warmth’ to nearby air molecules which are already much warmer
    than the CO2 molecule will be when it has just absorbed a photon???
    Your comments under the chart mention the 2.7 and 4.3 bands for CO2 and sunlight. Yes
    energy from the sun does warm the CO2 during daylight hours which warms the air but
    that energy failed to reach the surface so once more it appears that CO2 is a cooling
    agent in the atmosphere.
    Above the tropopause the CO2 will be radiating mostly directly to space in the 15 micron
    band and COOLING the upper atmosphere. There is little or no H2O at those altitudes.
    From my earlier question; nitrogen, oxygen argon are unable to radiate to space but CO2
    does the job most effectively.
    So it seems this layman is right royally screwed up and simply cannot understand how
    THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT became the lynch pin of atmospheric ‘science’.

  142. Jeff Crowder says:

    I have lived on the Space Coast in sunny Florida for 46 years. Recently, many of our palms have been adversely affected by a whitefly infestation. I say “recently” because for me it is…I’ve never seen them before. I mentioned this to a friend and he immediately blamed the infestation on Climate Change. I asked him where he had heard or read that and he replied “isn’t it obvious?” He continued, “the climate is changing and forcing these insects to move to other areas as their normal habitat has been adversely affected”.

    He sounded like he certainly knew what he was talking about. So I asked him where these whiteflys originated from. He replied, “Probably Cuba”. After pressing him I learned that he didn’t really know. After continued pressing on my part I learned that he assumed it was Climate Change that brought them here and that he’d never seen them around here before either.

    They may very well be coming here because of habitat issues. But the fact that my friend made this assumption was what really frustrated me. It’s so easy and lazy to blame Climate Change for a host of issues yet people just accept it. Conditioning? What happened to science? I’m certainly not saying that the infestation isn’t caused by Climate Change. I don’t really know at this point. But I’m open to suggestions. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was open to suggestions?

  143. DirkH says:

    Robert Clemenzi says:
    September 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    “What happened to the “edit preview” feature? I no longer have that option – as you can see in my previous post!”

    Anthony has quit wordpress professional for the moment.
    An alternative is, if you have Firefox, to download the Greasemonkey add-on, and the Climate Audit assistant.

  144. DirkH says:

    Brad Keyes says:
    September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
    “I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” ”

    Looking there, I find
    “Why doesn’t “scientific consensus” settle disputes about climate change and other issues? The answer, a CCP experimental study suggests, is not that only some citizens view scientific opinion as important, but rather that citizens of diverse cultural outlooks form different perceptions of what most scientists believe”

    This tells me that Kahan has discarded the scientific method for something else; probably communitarianism.

  145. Jeff

    Did you know there was a whitefly web site and task force?

    http://pbcgov.com/coextension/horticulture/whitefly/

    I have looked through the pdf’s but can’t see any mention of climate change.

    Why not read it up, defeat your friend by using informed argument then report on your findings in the next Open thread.’

    tonyb

  146. Wijnand Schouten says:

    [quote]
    Wijnand Schoutem:

    I am replying to your long and rambling post at September 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423908

    My energy bills have little to do with true costs. They are inflated by subsidies to – and additional costs of – renewables. I already pay the equivalent of US$5 per gallon of petrol (i.e. American translation, gasoline) because 80% of the price in the UK is tax.

    The coal price and cost is at a century low according to the IEA. Fracking has dramatically reduced the cost of producing oil and gas. The existence of the LSE process for synthetic crude from coal constrains the maximum long-term price of oil.

    Imported oil has NOTHING to do with the “economic turndown”, and only 1% of electricity is generated from oil so renewables would not noticeably affect oil imports.

    Unless you live far from the grid your solar panels will cost a small fortune compared to electricity from the grid when subsidies are removed.

    And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.

    Richard
    [/quote]

    I seriously disagree with you here. Maybe in the UK this is the case , but a few hundred miles west of you, we do not have any subsidies for Solar or a FIT.

    Also, in NL we have good and decent statistics available on how much oil we import every day. It’s around 1 million barrels. Do the math …. every 10 days we spend 1 billion euro’s on oil … that is money going out of our economy to the Middle east. Yearly it’s around 36.5 billion euro.

    Just think about it for a moment what would happen if it is possible to not spend this money in the Middle east and keep it running in your own economy. Our recession would be in the past instantly. We do use Nuclear here, we have a decent amount of Gas and we are going to use fracking. Nevertheless , it doesn’t make up for the numbers of our usage in the near future.

    I would be very happy if they build a windfarm on sea over here. It’s bringing employment to build the farm, and the turbines will earn themselves back eventually over time. For the energy peaks or peak shaving what you can call it, are already cheap and good solutions available, just like my ancestors did. If you have to much energy you pump water in the basin, if you have to little you let it out. Water turbines are very stable and can be used very easily here. Small(er) wind turbines are also very efficient, since you don’t have to deal with the 30 – 40%!! energy loss in the transport network and use the generated energy locally near the homes.

    I just got ticked off my the first commenter in this thread. It’s just time to stop the AGW = renewable link. Yes , you are right …. it’s a part of it because left wing politicians (ab)use it over and over again, but there are also benefit’s on renewable in the mid term future. Yes you are right, for now ( in the upcoming decade ) there might be some cheaper solutions available, they just don’t last long i think as more and more people depend on it and recourses drain out.

    And for the Solar thing …. i just load my Opel Ampera ( Chevrolet Volt for the USA people ) with my solar panel whenever i have to much. I need around 10 kWh to drive around 80 KM , a total cost of around 2,30 euro here. ( we pay 23 cents per kWh )
    If i use gas, i need approx. 4 liters, a cost of 7 euro here. Do the math how long it takes to earn my, in your opinion not economic, solar panels back…….. i’ll give you a hint…. an array, generating around 1000 kWh yearly costs around 1200 euro (no subsidies involved) ……. So i have this array earned back in 1.75 years. …. i rather buy something that’s of value to me with my money then spend it at the gas station and send it to Sjeik Abdullah….. perhaps not rocket science but very good for my wallet ;)

  147. Ric Werme says:

    ENSO data (and hence the WUWT ENSO meter) remains boring. Which is getting rather interesting. Oh wait a minute, last night’s update ran fine, but the data isn’t new. I’ll look into it closer tonight.

  148. Wijnand Schouten:

    I am replying to your post at September 23, 2013 at 5:06 am.

    I am unaware of the circumstances specific to The Netherlands so cannot comment on those. However, I have difficulty accepting that wind and solar are being adopted anywhere without subsidies unless their adoption is enforced by legislation and/or regulation (such enforcement is a form of hidden subsidy).

    If you want to give people pointless employment so they have jobs then get them to dig holes then fill them in, then dig … That way you will not obtain off-shore bird swatters which provide a hazard to shipping but no useful electricity.

    And oil is not used to produce much electricity anywhere. If imports from the Middle East worry you then adopt coal for power generation and – if you want – convert some to oil. Coal is abundant, cheap and available from many sources worldwide. And The Netherlands is equipped with large coal ports.

    If you want to operate an expensive and very range limited electric car then do. But don’t expect the rest of us to put up with that.

    Resources don’t run out. They never have and they never will. Use the WUWT Search facility to read the several threads which discuss the daft notion of Peak Oil. You admit that resource depletion will not be a problem for the foreseeable “coming decade”. It will not be a problem ever.

    Simply, you are advocating expensive and harmful solutions to non-problems.

    Richard

  149. tadchem says:

    For John Whitman, and anyone else interested: The difference between “science” and “pseudo-science” is found in the process called “critical thinking.” James Lett has produced an excellent description of exactly what comprises it in his “Field Guide to Critical Thinking”, published by CSICOP on their website. He reduces it to 6 words summarizing rules to follow when considering any claim: Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Recommended reading…

  150. craig Loehle says:

    re: Wijnand Schouten and renewables. You express faith that these technologies will pay for themselves in the long run and that the cost of oil will keep going up, neither of which is likely. But few burn oil for electricity, so it isn’t even oil that wind farms are replacing. Because when the wind does not blow and at night when there is no solar energy and because there is no mass storage available (in spite of what you say, the power companies can not store electricity and pumped water storage is a rare thing and takes lots of land) the building of wind and solar does NOT allow you to close any power plants. They must all remain for when the “renewables” don’t deliver. This fixed cost raises the price for renewables because you must build both wind farms and a coal or nuclear plant, not just one of them. If renewables cost 6 times as much without the subsidies (and subsidies mean someone is paying via taxes) you aren’t saving anything vs importing coal (not oil). You are just switching a cost you can see for one that is hidden. An additional cost for both wind and solar is that they take up lots of land and must have transmission lines built out to them, which is expensive and again takes up land. It is also becoming apparent that the lifetime for both solar and wind installations is much shorter than the claimed, which again raises the costs. Why might a windmill work for a farmer? Because getting water pumped into basins or tanks only when the wind blows is ok, but you don’t see farmers with a chicken coop running the coop on wind or solar because they need electricity 24/7. I recently read that fire departments won’t send firemen onto the roof if it has solar because the firemen can get electrocuted. The house may then burn down. Swell. And did I mention how having too much wind power disrupts the power grid? This can cause blackouts. Not something I want.

  151. beng says:

    ***
    Roger Sowell says:
    September 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Energy density is meaningless.
    ***

    Hilarious. You were joking, right?

  152. davidmhoffer says:

    Wijnand Schouten says:
    September 23, 2013 at 5:06 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You’ve conflated a large number of issues. For starters, a regulatory requirement to acquire a given % of electricity on the part of the power utility from “green” sources artificially raises the price. It is a different way of accomplishing the same thing and the end result is you are paying 23 c/kwh for something that should be costing you 10 c/kwh. Now run your ROI calculation and suddenly your 1.75 years is 4 years. Actually longer because your panels will lose efficiency every year and may not make it to 4 years in the first place. Second, your car’s cost is subsidized. The auto manufacturer earns carbon credits for producing an electric car which they then sell to other auto manufacturers. Without this your car would cost more, a LOT more, and you have to add that amount of money into your ROI calculation as well. Rough guess you are up to 7+ years return on your solar panels except you’ll never achieve it because they won’t last that long. Third, while your electric car may be fine for short commuter trips, it is useless for longer trips, and for larger vehicles. Electric just isn’t a substitute that is practical for trucking, rail, or heavy industry, and that is where the vast bulk of imported oil is going.

    Lastly, you have this fantasy that keeping the money local is somehow good for the economy. This is muddled thinking that is based on multiple fallacies. For starters, the middle east countries import everything from food to computers to heavy machinery with money they earned from oil revenues. Its not like every dime that goes their way disappears forever into their pockets. More importantly, even if every dime disappeared forever, if we followed your advice, it would decimate your local economy. Industry burdened with 3X to 5X the energy costs of imported oil still collapses. That the money earned by wind mill operators is “local” makes no difference to energy intensive industries which will collapse regardless of their energy dollars being sent off shore or on shore. Their energy costs force them to close shop or outsource their activities to off shore firms. Those middle east countries you are trying to cut out of the pitcure will gladly sell their oil to China instead, or host the factories themselves so that they get both the oil revenue and the manufacturing jobs.

    Subsidies, feed in tariffs, regulatory requirments for a given percentage of energy to be sourced from specific sources, carbon credits and trading all serve to distort the market and produce ROI calculations that look good on paper but have nothing to do with reality. The end result is that every action you take to achieve your goals in such an environment will almost always have unintended consequences worse than the problem you were trying to fix in the first place.

  153. Wijnand Schouten says:

    [quote]
    Third, while your electric car may be fine for short commuter trips, it is useless for longer trips, and for larger vehicles
    [/quote]

    It’s useless to repeat views on certain matters. I am fine with everyones opinion. However one thing should be said. The Opel Ampera ( the EU style volt ) can drive 80 KM electric, then it switches to the range extender, using 1 liter fuel per 20 KM. ( 47 miles a gallon ). So in total the distance is 500 KM ( 310 miles ) without refill. If i need to go further, i just stop at the gas-station and pull my wallet like anyone else, so this car is far from useless.

    The great advantage here is that the 80 KM ( 50 miles ) is enough to do my home / work / supermarket and other things. My average ( Gas + electric ) is 1.4 liter / 100 KM. ( 170 miles a gallon ). Second great advantage is that the fuel sucking inefficient cold engine for short distance/aka normal car is a thing of the past. The third great thing is that the Gas engine always runs at it’s optimal point , filling the battery’s or directly connected to the wheels for optimum efficiency.

    For the rest, it’s just a super driving and nice and looking car. The car ain’t subsidized, i just pay less tax for owning it here.

    Again … this is going back to the first reason i responded in this thread. WUWT is super and great for those people who actually have brains and think about climate + what’s going on in the world. It makes me sad that those people are very narrow in their views and not really open to new things in life ;) … as soon as they hear Volt / Windturbine or Solarpanel they have their opinion ready. True … there is enough BS said from AGW people and left wing politicians , but if you look at this from above, with a cooling planet ahead and AGW people screwed.. the Opel Ampera can go back to the garage if we do not let the link AWG renewables / new technique go….. This site set’s opinions and makes a difference, also in the near future. That would be a real waste of knowledge / efforts / money and possibility’s.

  154. Wijnand Schouten:

    In your post at September 23, 2013 at 11:36 am you say

    Again … this is going back to the first reason i responded in this thread. WUWT is super and great for those people who actually have brains and think about climate + what’s going on in the world. It makes me sad that those people are very narrow in their views and not really open to new things in life ;) … as soon as they hear Volt / Windturbine or Solarpanel they have their opinion ready.

    A more clear example of psychological projection is hard to imagine.

    You have come here spouting nonsense which has no relationship to reality. In replies you have been provided with information, arguments and references which demonstrate your “narrow views” are nonsense. For example, did you read the link I provided in reply to your first post? It is at
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf

    And now you say of your electric car

    The car ain’t subsidized, i just pay less tax for owning it here.

    Clearly, Wijnand, you don’t know what a subsidy is.

    Richard

  155. Richard Vada says:

    Indeed.

    ====
    Wijnand Schoutem says:
    September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am

    “I sound silly…”

  156. Richard_Vada says:

    Schouten you’re schouten to the wrong crowd. What YOU need is bunch of hicks who can’t read or write to preach your energy apocalypse energy religion to.

    People like that are called “liberals.”

  157. davidmhoffer says:

    Wijnand Schouten says:
    September 23, 2013 at 11:36 am
    the Opel Ampera ( the EU style volt ) can drive 80 KM electric, then it switches to the range extender, using 1 liter fuel per 20 KM.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So, exactly as I said, the electric car is useless for longer trips, you just happen to have one that can be converted to fossil fuel on the fly. Doesn’t change the fact that electric car mode is useless for longer trips, in fact you’ve just stipulated to exactly that. As Richard has already pointed out, there’s no difference between a tax break and a subsidy. They are both price reductions ultimately funded by the tax payer.

  158. Roger Sowell says:

    @ davidmhoffer, richardscourtney, and any others who buy into the energy density concept:

    You apparently do not understand energy nor economics. But first, energy is dense, in relation to what? Is it Btu per pound? If that is the meaning, then natural gas is more energy dense than coal. Yet, coal provided more electric power – by far – than natural gas in the US until very recently. Economics is the reason.

    Natural gas was priced higher than coal for many years. But, economics-driven technology provided abundant natural gas so that now, gas is preferred over coal. Also, technology of gas turbines improved so that the plant efficiency is better with natural gas. The overall gas-power economics are much better now than 50 years ago.

    If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently? Did natural gas recently increase in energy density?

    Your argument is absurd.

    As to wind, it is noteworthy that wind farms are located where wind speed is adequate. Pumped storage with wind-generated power as the pumping energy is more than economic. This is widely known as a form of piwer storage and time-shifting the power to a better economic period, day-time peak power.

    If your argument is valid, a wind-powered pumped storage power plant shoud be impossible.

    We have multiple such pumped storage plants in California.

  159. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Sowell;
    If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Economics is a function of cost versus results not one or the other. Are you done making yourself look stupid for the day?

  160. Robert Scott says:

    JA said at September 22, 2013 at 8:22 am
    Prior to Mann’s Hockey Stick, was there any doubt whatsoever about the existence of the Medieval Warming Period?

    Good question. It seems to me that the science on the subject had been settled for years. Until, of course, Dr Mann came along and said it wasn’t but when he did nobody accused him of being a denialist or sceptic. Why’s that?

  161. Roger Sowell says:

    @ davidmhoffer,

    You Attacked the messenger, but cannot refute the message. This is a sure sign you have lost the argument. You are indeed a loser!

    Argue the facts, sir!

    Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?

    You have lost, again.

  162. Roger Sowell:

    davidmhoffer gave you a factual answer to your silly and ignorant question; i.e.

    Economics is a function of cost versus results not one or the other.

    He then offered you some helpful advice in the form of a question; i.e.

    Are you done making yourself look stupid for the day?

    Clearly, your answer at September 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm says, ‘No’ you wanted to make a fool of yourself again. So, I will spell out what davidmhoffer told you.

    Energy density is one of the factors which affects both costs and results.

    Now, have you at last done making yourself look stupid for the day?

    Richard

  163. davidmhoffer says:

    Oh come on Roger, I did argue the facts. Coal was cheaper than natural gas by a factor large enough to more than compensate for the difference in energy density. At price parity, energy density wins. The larger the disparity in energy density, the larger the price difference must be to compensate and make the economics of the low density source viable. If you do not understand this simple concept you are certainly not qualified to make disparaging remarks about other’s understanding of economics, and you are in fact making yourself look stupid once again. I’m not attacking you, I’m trying to help you understand how you are coming across to anyone who actually thinks about it for a moment or two.

  164. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm:

    You apparently do not understand energy nor economics. But first, energy is dense, in relation to what? Is it Btu per pound? If that is the meaning, then natural gas is more energy dense than coal. Yet, coal provided more electric power – by far – than natural gas in the US until very recently. Economics is the reason.

    If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently? Did natural gas recently increase in energy density?

    Coal became king because it’s transportable by open cars, trucks, in sacks. You can pile it up and use it when you get around to it. No pressurized tanks, no transporting in pipelines. It will not leak into the air and make an explosion hazard, it will not leak onto the ground and be a fire hazard that pollutes the ground.

    It’s just rocks, about as safe as it gets. The greatest risk is that of combustible dusts, well known, and as opposed to flour you can spray it down to take care of the dust. The other common solid fuel that’s piled up, wood and wood chips, can rot and may spontaneously combust. If your furnace doesn’t fire off, just try harder, no need to ventilate explosive fumes from the house and combustion chamber first.

    That’s why coal is king, it’s safe and waits until it’s used, and provides much energy for its weight and volume.

    Which brings up other economics. Steel tanks and pipelines cost money. It takes money to build and maintain a local natural gas distribution network. They also need dedicated distribution systems, a tank for compressed natural gas isn’t used for fuel oil, etc.

    But for coal, the same railroad cars transporting it can go right to transporting crushed stone and other cargo. Many people take home a load of coal with their pick-up trucks. Plus the inspection requirements for coal transportation are much easier, there isn’t an imminent threat of fiery death if a few pieces of coal leak out of the containment. You don’t need testing and re-certification of a patched coal bucket.

    And you can set up a coal-fired power plant virtually anywhere, in places that won’t have natural gas pipelines for many decades, if ever.

    Cheap to get, cheap to transport, cheap to store, cheap to use. That’s economics. Easily transportable in quantities from small to large with no special equipment, it can go anywhere people can go, and provide reliable energy. That’s convenience. No other energy source can do what coal does. None.

    And especially not windmills.

  165. Zeke says:

    [Awed silence.]

  166. Roger Sowell says:

    @ davidmhoffer, richardscourtney,

    You lose, as you must. If your argument is valid, then nuclear power from uranium fission would be the most economic power source, given its “energy density”. The Btu content from a pound of uranium is far greater than that from a pound of oil, gas, or coal. Wind energy is not suitable to energy density measurement, unless you can go outside and weigh up a ton of wind, then measure the Btu content.

    But, the Figure 7 at the link below puts the lie to your argument. Nuclear power costs are far greater than costs from natural gas, wind, and gasified coal. How can that be, since nuclear fuel is the most “energy dense”?

    You should alert the Califirnia Energy Commission and inform them that you, as world-class experts in energy economics, can show that energy density proves them horribly wrong.

    http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF

    Good day, losers. This has been great fun, but I have things to accomplish.

    One more thing… If California Energy Commission is not to your liking, then please explain why the proposed 2,200 MWe nuclear plant expansion in South Texas was abandoned when the cost to construct was revealed to be greater than $17 Billion. Please, you two geniuses, go inform the Texans how wrong they are, because your superior knowledge of energy density puts nuclear power as the preferred power plant.

    Seriously! “energy density”. I can hear the Texans laughing at you, from here.

  167. Roger Sowell:

    In your latest example of your foolishness at September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm you say

    Good day, losers. This has been great fun, but I have things to accomplish.

    I assume that you are off “to accomplish” the removal of your foot from your mouth.

    Richard

  168. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm:

    One more thing… If California Energy Commission is not to your liking, then please explain why the proposed 2,200 MWe nuclear plant expansion in South Texas was abandoned when the cost to construct was revealed to be greater than $17 Billion.

    For one thing, it was never abandoned, despite your assertion:

    NRC shoots down Texas nuclear plant expansion
    By James Osborne

    12:04 pm on April 30, 2013

    Plans to build two new reactors at the South Texas Project nuclear facility outside Bay City hit a road block Tuesday.

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that a partnership between NRG and Toshiba Corp. through the holding company Nuclear Innovation North America violated a U.S law prohibiting foreign control of nuclear power plants.

    “At this point NINA from our perspective is foreign owned, controlled or dominated,” said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. “Until such time as NINA can come up with a different corporate ownership structure we would not be able to approve their license.”

    Regulators took issue with NRG’s decision two years ago to pull back its investment in expanding the existing two reactors at the South Texas Project facility. At the time electricity prices were falling rapidly with the tapping of vast domestic reserves of natural gas.

    Since then the licensing process, which takes years to complete, has been wholly funded by Toshiba in the form of a loan, an NRG spokesman said.

    But Houston-based NRG has not completely dismissed the project, at least in concept.

    “It is unknown where natural gas prices will be in the future,” said spokesman David Knox. “At some point it’s very possible new nuclear will be economically viable.”

    Great job there at confirming the facts before you presented your case, lawyer.

  169. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Sowell;
    You should alert the Califirnia Energy Commission and inform them that you, as world-class experts in energy economics, can show that energy density proves them horribly wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Neither Richard nor I said that energy density was the sole arbiter of economics. You’ve not only managed to make yourself look stupid, you’ve taken to outright obfuscation to support your stupidity. Piss off.

  170. Jeff Crowder says:

    @climatereason

    Thanks for the link. I may very well do the research and if I do, I’ll report my findings. But I’d be most satisfied if I could break my friends climate conditioning. He’s a smart guy and a good neighbor so I really don’t want to defeat him per se. But I would like him to understand why it’s important to be skeptical.

    My usual advice for those less familiar with the subject of climate change (I’m well read but no expert) is to be wary of anyone trying to frighten you with Climate Change. I take more of the Freeman Dyson approach…there are many benefits to a warmer world and very little benefit to a colder one. Colder times throughout history have always been riddled with strife. So I’d like to see him become skeptical…just a little wary…and a little more aware.

  171. Roger Sowell says:

    Sorry, Kadaka, wrong on your part. The financial backers had already withdrawn their support, before the date (April 30) of your citation above. It does, indeed, help to have one’s facts in order. Which you, obviously, do not.

    “NRG pulls financial support for South Texas nuclear plant expansion” — April 20, 2013

    http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/nrg-pulls-financial-support-for-south-texas-nuclea/nRZLD/

  172. Roger Sowell says:

    And another source, April 19, 2013:

    “NRG Energy Inc. officially ended plans to build more nuclear power reactors in Texas.
    The second-largest power generator in the state said Tuesday it will stop spending money on plans to build two more reactors at the South Texas Project, outside of Houston. The project was doomed when a financial partner, Tokyo Electric Power Co., saw its reactors in Japan explode after the earthquake.

    “We have concluded that, financially, this is the end of the line for us,” said NRG chief executive David Crane. And even if the project is resurrected, “it will have to be fueled by somebody else’s financial resources.” ” (bold added)

    http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20110419-nrg-ends-project-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors.ece

    Really, Kadaka, please try to have your facts straight.

  173. Ric Werme says:

    Ric Werme says:
    September 23, 2013 at 6:09 am

    ENSO data (and hence the WUWT ENSO meter) remains boring. Which is getting rather interesting. Oh wait a minute, last night’s update ran fine, but the data isn’t new. I’ll look into it closer tonight.

    Just late, my updater ran again, successfully, the meter is back to zero:

    Opening http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=24&month=aug&year=2013&fday=23&fmonth=sep&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
    Found target /tmp/CTEST137995560116793.txt
    Opening http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov//tmp/CTEST137995560116793.txt
    Data file
    data from 00Z24AUG2013 to 00Z23SEP2013
    “———-”
    -0.331909
    -0.00674132
    0.112998
    0.101078
    0.0172623
    Length of data file 102, most recent value: 0.0172623
    file_last 0.101078
    anomaly +00

  174. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 5:41 pm:

    Sorry, Kadaka, wrong on your part. The financial backers had already withdrawn their support, before the date (April 30) of your citation above.

    Strange, “backers” is a plural, you point to only one backer and say the backers, plural, withdrew their financial support.

    But what you just said was already covered in what I quoted:

    Regulators took issue with NRG’s decision two years ago to pull back its investment in expanding the existing two reactors at the South Texas Project facility. At the time electricity prices were falling rapidly with the tapping of vast domestic reserves of natural gas.

    Since then the licensing process, which takes years to complete, has been wholly funded by Toshiba in the form of a loan, an NRG spokesman said.

    It’s right there, a loan from Toshiba has been funding this, NRG Energy pulled back in 2011.

    Oh, I just noticed you made a grave mistake in your September 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm comment. You said “And another source, April 19, 2013:”

    Except the date is actually 2011, not 2013. You’ve confirmed what I quoted.

    Oh no, I checked your 5:41 pm link which you said was from “April 20, 2013″. Bold added:

    Updated: 10:58 a.m. Wednesday, April 20, 2011 | Posted: 7:47 p.m. Tuesday, April 19, 2011

    You’ve confirmed me twice, after getting the year wrong twice.

    Now that you’ve slipped into this Jimmy Hansen “I’m dong this for my grandchildren!” mode of thought, except rabidly anti-nuke instead of rabidly anti-coal/CAGW, the quality of your presentations has slipped.

  175. Brad Keyes says:

    Jeff Crowder:

    He’s a smart guy and a good neighbor so I really don’t want to defeat him per se.

    Smart, and beautifully put. In fact I suspect it’s impossible to change anyone’s mind this late in the debate so long as we view it as a form of combat. On the contrary, you might find that rhetorical “disarmament” is the first step (for both yourself and your friend).

    Just out of anthropological curiosity, is your friend by any chance:

    1. oriented leftward in his politics
    2. an educated person, but without any tertiary science training? And therefore, presumably, unequipped to distinguish science from ecneics, through no fault of his own?

    (Sorry if you’ve already spoken to those questions—I haven’t yet read the whole thread.)

    But I would like him to understand why it’s important to be skeptical.

    Please keep us posted on how it goes.

    Brad

    PS I don’t advocate pacifism when it comes to the ringleaders. They get no mercy from me. Only the rank and file deserve our tolerance, because they’re victims of the scam just as much as we are.

  176. Jeff Crowder says:

    Hello Brad.
    To answer your questions:
    1. He’s a self-described independent.
    2. I’m not sure about his education but he is employed as an insurance adjuster.

    If you didn’t catch the initial post what it basically said was that we live on the Space Coast in Florida and we’ve been inundated with whitefly infestations (which are killing our palms). We both grew up here and neither of us have seen them in this area to this extent…they are all over the place. He blamed the infestation on Climate Change (very matter-of-fact about it). But, when I pressed him on this he basically admitted that he really didn’t know if that was true…but to him it seemed like the most logical explanation.

    After I mentioned a number of other possible reasons (which I admitted to him to be just speculative) he agreed that these were just as plausible. So my post was about my personal frustration with Climate Change becoming the knee-jerk answer for whatever new thing that crops up. That is just so lazy imho. But I also think that the average Joe get’s conditioned, or has an adjusted filter based on the one-sided bombardment of this issue in the media. I actually suggested this site to him as I believe it to be highly educational.

  177. suffolkboy says:

    Reports that Dr Pachauri would disappear completely by 2015 have been denied by the IPCC. “It was the result of an unfortunate typographical error”, said a spokesman. “We should have said that it was highly likely that he will be gone by 2150″. “In the end, he will just melt away quite suddenly,” added Professor Wadhams.

  178. Roger Sowell says:

    So, Kadaka, you admit you are wrong, that STNP expansion was cancelled due to the project being financially unviable. That was TWO YEARS before the no-foreign-ownership ruling.

    To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.

  179. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Sowell;
    To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well obviously energy density trumps regulatory requirements (SARC!). Are you totally and completely daft? Or are you just so certain that as a lawyer you are so much smarter than anyone else in the room that you can throw out complete stupidity and expect it to be believed? You are the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name, a mean trick in this day and age.

  180. phlogiston says:

    The Sowell diatribe about nuclear is undermined by a simple fact. 90% of the “costs” of nuclear are artificial, not real. These costs are created by cynical obstruction by activists, the decades long inquiries and appeals, abusive radiation protection practices based on the scientifically bankrupt LNT fallacy, obstruction of all nuclear related activities etc.

    Take this (appropriate) analogy. Lets say that if a woman wished to get a job for an employer, then that woman is obliged to pay 100, 000 dollars to a lawyer to prove she is not a witch. If as a result of this there were fewer women in work, it would be simple for lawyers to explain why. “Its just not economic”.

  181. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 7:29 am:

    So, Kadaka, you admit you are wrong, that STNP expansion was cancelled due to the project being financially unviable. That was TWO YEARS before the no-foreign-ownership ruling.

    What a sad attack from an attorney caught misrepresenting evidence. Of course supplying the wrong years in your presentation may have been an unintended mistake, that you just happened to do twice in quick succession while pressing a point built on those dates. Heat of the moment, haste makes waste, etc. The law has allowances for stabbing someone twice with a butter knife when you thought you had grabbed a steak knife, yes?

    You said on September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm:

    If California Energy Commission is not to your liking, then please explain why the proposed 2,200 MWe nuclear plant expansion in South Texas was abandoned when the cost to construct was revealed to be greater than $17 Billion.

    I said it was never abandoned, and backed it with evidence. The permitting process was not canceled, the partnership behind the expansion was not dissolved, thus the project was not abandoned. As read in the article I provided, as mentioned by an NRG Energy spokesman, new nuclear may become economically viable in the future. Keep watch of what happens with future natural gas prices.

    Well, as can be read in this Sept 23, 2013 Motley Fool piece, natural gas prices in the US are temporarily very cheap:


    That’s an important fact to keep in mind. While oil is a global commodity, the domestic natural gas industry, for the most part, is not. For example, BP highlighted in its annual energy review that up until about 2008, U.S. natural gas prices were in line with those from around the world.

    At the end of 2012, however, U.S. gas was trading at massive discounts to foreign gas because the supply glut brought about by new drilling methods overwhelmed demand in the largely insulated market. Prices in the United Kingdom were closest at over three times U.S. prices.

    The big change will be increased domestic demand from utilities and others coupled with, perhaps more importantly, increased export capacity. Competing with foreign gas directly will shift the pricing dynamic of natural gas the world over. Like WTI and Brent, prices will likely converge higher than where domestic natural gas is trading hands today. Even if that shift is just a few dollars, the percentage increase from recent gas prices in the mid-$3 range would be huge.

    Etc. The US NG exports are limited by lack of shipping terminals, which are now being built, approved, going online. Domestic use is increasing. The excess supply will be put to use, 2013 prices are already notably up from 2012 lows (see article).

    The US natural gas prices shall rise.

    NRG Energy has their green credentials, they have solar farm assets. They have convinced rabid anti-nuke activists they have abandoned their nuclear plant expansion plans, and casual investors that they are not spending money on furthering the project.

    But if they win their appeal and this stage of permitting successfully concludes, once natural gas prices rise as they must and new nuclear becomes economically viable, NRG Energy can move right back into investing and getting those reactors built.

    I am not the one who is wrong. The expansion was not abandoned as you had said, it was not canceled as you now say. In response to unprecedented and ultimately transitory lows in domestic natural gas prices, it continued stealthily onward in a manner acceptable to the public and investors. When it rises into public view again, don’t call it a zombie as it was never dead.

  182. Roger Sowell says:

    Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.

    If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.

  183. Roger Sowell says:

    Now, Kadaka having lost the atlrgument, switches the topic to an un-knowable future where gas prices are high. Nice try!

    By the way, did you notice what happened the last time gas prices temporarily rose? Yep…technology advances allowed production of vast reservoirs of natural gas.

    Nuclear power is dead, and for excellent reasons. It can never compete economically; even if it is the most “energy dense” fuel.

    It’s clear that you cannot argue the economics, so you try to change the subject to irrelevant issues like “energy density”. Next, you try the “yeah, well you just wait until natural gas prices increase!” argument.

    I can’t wait to hear your next line of BS!

  184. dbstealey says:

    Roger Sowell,

    While I agree with much of what you write, I can’t accept that nuclear power is ‘ignorant’, or that it is promoted by a chorus of ‘true believers’.

    If it was, then how do you explain the U.S. Navy’s extremely successful nuclear powered submarine fleet, which has been operating with a superb safety record since the 1950′s?

    Our boy served on the USS Helena for six years as a nuclear reactor technician. [I would explain more, but then I would have to kill you for your own safety. ☹ /sarc!]

    I don’t understand your visceral opposition to nuclear power. Your arguments appear to be emotion-based, not fact-based. Compared with windmills, for example, nukes are about a million times more efficient. And as many folks have pointed out, more Americans have been killed by Senator Kennedy than by nuclear power, making it one of the safest energy sources in existence.

  185. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Sowell;
    I can’t wait to hear your next line of BS!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Roger, seriously? You’ve descended from making yourself look stupid to pure dogmatic drivel. I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand the difference between cost and economics, or that you don’t understand that economics is in part, but not exclusively, a function of energy density. Yet here you are making statement after statement that demonstrates that my disbelief may be poor judgment on my part. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse in support of your dogmatic anti-nuclear belief system, or that you suffer from a natural occurring incidence of the malady. Either way you have shot your credibility so completely full of holes there is little point carrying on a discussion with you. You’re not even worth the time it takes to write an insult.

  186. dbstealey:

    re your post at September 24, 2013 at 1:42 pm.

    Please do not encourage Roger Sowell to desist.
    I ask because I am enjoying the Punch and Judy show.

    Sowell has had his ‘accident’ with the ‘baby’ of truth and he is still beating up on the ‘Judy’ of reason.
    You have arrived like the constable to restore order but too soon.
    Sowell has yet to deal with the sausages and I eagerly await the surreal form of the crocodile.

    Please allow him to continue to his traditional self destruction. Remember, if he continues then the hangman awaits.

    Richard

  187. phlogiston says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 24, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.

    If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.

    Actually I joined this particular chorus back in the 90′s when I completed a masters degree in radiation biophysics including nuclear power essentials, followed by a PhD in radionuclide dosimetry and biological effects. While more focused on the biology side I do understand 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation reactor design. I developed a way to measure alpha particle environmental contamination (e.g. U, Pu, Am etc.) which is being used by Ukraine’s nuclear-environmental agency to this day. I have a photo of standing with a group of Ukrainian radiation scientists a few yards from reactor 4 in Chernobyl, good times – no fear! I researched Canadian caribou which have up to 3000 x more natural alpha radioactivity (210Pb/210Po) in their bones than humans – have done so for millions of years with no humans and no ill effects. It was researching this inconvenient truth that led to me being approached by an anonymous UK government official at a conference and told to stop drawing attention to high and safe natural radioactivity in animals or have my research funding stopped. (The agency in question was pursuing an alarmist agenda.) I ignored her warning and had to change careers.

    You however are part of a much larger team of antinuke cheerleaders. You are a lawyer. You do not understand science and cannot. To fantasise that you do is a dangerous illusion.

    The problems of nuclear safety and attendant costs are as artificial as the nuclides bred in the fast-breeder reactors. It is based on the illusion of harmful effect of radiation at very low dose. I am familiar with the substantial literature on animal and human exposure to all radiation modalties that shows a vaccuum of evidence for such risk. Like global warming, it is an artificially modelled entity at odds with real world scientific data. LNT is a fallacy crafted to destroy the nuclear industry. AGW is much more ambitious – it is crafted to degrade the entire world economy.

    Nonscientists / engineers taking control of scientific / technical issues has given us a legacy of disaster in the UK:

    - destruction of our nuclear industry and expertise so we now have to buy reactors from France
    - sky high energy prices from Luddite environmental energy policies
    - emigration of our best aerospace engineers to Boeing in the 60′s when government cancelled the TSR2 aircraft project
    - destruction of our pharmaceutical industry and research base by animal rights activism
    - a chief government scientist announcing that breeding pairs of humans need to be sent to Antarctica to preserve the human race from global warming

    Its not a winning formula.

  188. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 22, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    @John Whitman

    I am replying to your post at September 22, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423797

    Your reply to says

    Your idea on pseudo-science, however can be viewed as biased science awaiting the scientific self correction process to play out, but still within the historic experience and relevant purview of science. If viewed that way it still leaves the question open as to what pseudo-science is as it exists independent of science.

    I suggest pseudo-science is that which merely mimics scientific processes / scientists / scientific vocabulary. It is ceremony, ritual, acting, ‘going through the motions’. The intent of pseudo-science in that case is to gain the benefits of appearing to be scientists or appearing to have scientific products. Would that view of pseudo-science bear on what the IPCC is doing?

    No. That is wrong on all counts.

    I remind that I said in my post you have replied

    Science is an attempt to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which contradicts existing understanding(s) and amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in the light of obtained information.

    Pseudoscience accepts an existing understanding as being ‘true’ then seeking information which supports the understanding while ignoring and/or rejecting information which contradicts existing understanding.

    Simply, pseudoscience is the antithesis of science. But pseudoscience pretends to be science, and pseudoscientists often think they are scientists: (If you don’t believe that pseudoscientists often think they are scientists then ask an astrologer or a homeopath.)

    Science starts from uncertainty and attempts reduce it because science recognises that all knowledge is uncertain.
    Pseudoscience starts from certainty and attempts bolster acceptance of it.

    So, both obtain and use evidence but they use it in different ways for different purposes.

    Science is – given sufficient time and effort – self-correcting because it seeks to overturn existing understanding and to reduce uncertainty.
    Pseudoscience is immune to scientific correction because an asserted certainty cannot be corrected.and has no uncertainty to be reduced. However, pseudoscientists act to reduce the uncertainty of the information it uses to bolster acceptance of the certainty.

    The IPCC exists to conduct pseudoscience. Indeed, it is tasked to do that. I explain this in my post at September 22, 2013 at 11:08 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423732

    Richard

    - – - – - – - –

    richardscourtney,

    Finally able to re-engage. It is enjoyable to do so.

    I am very careful to give unto science that which the history of science shows is within the messy self-correction process of science. The IPCC’s manifold incorrect (for whatever reason) science processes are being identified by the broader science community and should be eventually discredited / refuted, as historically happened to incorrect science. I find no useful meaning of a new concept to form around pseudo-science within that context.

    What is not being corrected by science, and which I think science cannot remedy, is the part of the IPCC that adheres to irrationalism as the basis of its activities. While publicly trying to appear scientific, they are actually trying to undermine science. Think post-modernism and post-normalism and philosophical pragmatism and the dual epistemological/ metaphysics of Hegel/Kant. Those systems cut science off from fundamentally knowing our physical reality and it is intentional /premeditated. That is irrationalism which, when used as a basis for IPCC processes and discussed in scientific sounding vocabulary, appears as science. It is profoundly anti-science. That is where I think there is a meaningful concept of pseudo-science. Anti-science mimicking science.

    Therefore, my concept of pseudo-science is not what yours is. But I do find what you describe is a complete and accurate description of the criteria for identifying incorrect science.

    I wonder if Feynman’s cargo cult science parable and Crichton’s similar kind of descriptions would indicate they had some similar thoughts as my concept of pseudo-science? I think they did.

    John

  189. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 1:29 pm:

    Now, Kadaka having lost the atlrgument, switches the topic to an un-knowable future where gas prices are high. Nice try!

    It’s clear that you cannot argue the economics, so you try to change the subject to irrelevant issues like “energy density”. Next, you try the “yeah, well you just wait until natural gas prices increase!” argument.

    When does one call it misrepresenting the evidence, instead of just outright lying?

    I have never argued “energy density” in this thread, I have never tried to change the subject to it, I have not even argued the economics of nuclear power.

    You asked why the expansion was abandoned when they saw the cost, I conclusively showed it wasn’t abandoned. I won.

    Now, what is the legal terminology for what you are doing? Are you giving false testimony, are you misrepresenting the evidence, or just outright lying?

    It is sad to see you resort to such tactics, as you languish deep in the throes of your anti-nuke rabidity.

    It is disheartening your illness keeps you from accepting basic economics. The producers of natural gas will naturally want to maximize their profits. There is no competition from foreign imports, domestic is far cheaper. After allowing more build-up of the user base to increase reliance, the producers will reduce available supplies to increase prices. This is normal business practice, there are needy shareholders they must keep fed.

    The natural gas price shall rise.

    The price abroad for natural gas is much more than in the US. It is profitable to buy US natural gas even with the transportation costs. Foreign buyers will spur American exports, reducing domestic supply.

    The natural gas price shall rise.

    Large price disparities get naturally corrected. Will you save money switching to natural gas heat over fuel oil? Market analysis will show how high the natural gas price can be before people stop considering switching, it takes too long to recoup the capital investment. Natural gas distributors will want their prices to be just under that point, where profits are maximized.

    The natural gas price shall rise.

    Everything points to the prices going up. There is money to be made. The natural gas companies are not willing to go bankrupt trying to sell too much product too cheaply in pursuit of market share like the solar PV panel makers are doing. If a product is still cheap at twice the price, blink and it will be twice the price.

    The natural gas price will rise. The nuclear plant expansion project has not been abandoned. You are avoiding the truth as a rabid creature avoids water, the condition getting worse as you descend deeper into your personal madness.

  190. John Whitman says:

    tadchem on September 23, 2013 at 7:41 am

    For John Whitman, and anyone else interested: The difference between “science” and “pseudo-science” is found in the process called “critical thinking.” James Lett has produced an excellent description of exactly what comprises it in his “Field Guide to Critical Thinking”, published by CSICOP on their website. He reduces it to 6 words summarizing rules to follow when considering any claim: Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Recommended reading…

    - – - – - – - –

    tadchem,

    I appreciate you joining the discussion.

    Thank you for that reference. I will look it up in the San Jose State University library when I return home to the SF Bay Area in mid Oct. I am currently enjoying my yearly month long pilgrimage to the old Whitman homestead in the Adirondack Mtns in upstate NY for the changing of the leaves to brilliant color.

    As you can see from my other comments in this thread, I am initiating a new conception of pseud-science, centered around philosophical irrationalism’s attack on science.

    John

  191. John Whitman says:

    Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 7:29 am

    So, Kadaka, you admit you are wrong, that STNP expansion was cancelled due to the project being financially unviable. That was TWO YEARS before the no-foreign-ownership ruling.

    To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.

    - – - – - – - -

    Roger Sowell,

    You are correct that the STNP cancelation was some years ago.

    The relatively recent NRC statement on foreign ownership will be resolved diplomatically / politically in Toshiba’s favor.There are several reasons. First Toshiba is the sole owner of Westinghouse Nuclear corporation who certainly is a US company with a history of licensing nuclear plants not only in the USA but also in Japan under partnership with Mitsubishi.

    Second, virtually all the components for any US reactor would come from Asia. So, the NRC’s outdated anti/global looking concept is defacto implausible.

    NEW SUBJECT => you stated that nuclear is dead. Yet it looks like the US electric utility Dominion may have preliminary deliberations about some new nuclear generating capacity. I heard it in pasting from some old nuclear colleagues recently, but have not confirmed it.

    ANOTHER SUBJECT => whether any nuclear plants in Japan will restart will be on a strictly political basis. Any change in politic leadership will yield some change in attitude on restart. Right now it does not look good for restart.

    FINALLY => China and Korea and the French aren’t with you on ‘nuclear is dead’. They are in expansion.

    John

  192. Mario Lento says:

    Wijnand Schoutem: Let’s assume that you are from the Netherlands, where you pay extremely high electricity prices. Is wind helping bring down your country’s electric rates?

  193. Roger Sowell says:

    @ kadaka, re gas price increasing. Sorry, but your economic ignorance is showing.

    You wrote, “The natural gas price shall rise” and gave a few scenarios.

    The real world works in a very simple way. For natural gas, which is priced on a $/SCF or $/Million Btu in the US, competitive ceilings exist from fuel switching. Natural gas price will not, for long, exceed the value of fuel oil. At present, fuel oil is somewhat below $16 / Million Btu. Even if gas were to rise to $16, from its present $4, nuclear power will be woefully un-competitive.

    Yet another ceiling exists for natural gas, which is the production of synthetic natural gas from coal .
    So, if you are pinning your nuclear power hopes on natural gas prices increasing, it is a false hope.

  194. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From John Whitman on September 24, 2013 at 5:03 pm (bold added):

    First Toshiba is the sole owner of Westinghouse Nuclear corporation

    It is Westinghouse Electric Company.

    It is majority owned by Toshiba, not solely owned.

    The Wikipedia Westinghouse Electric Company entry has the current breakdown:
    Toshiba (87%) (majority owner)
    KazAtomProm (10%)
    IHI (3%)

    Toshiba’s own literature says it is majority owner, and uses the correct name:

    Westinghouse Electric Company, majority owned by Toshiba Corporation (TKY:6502), is the world’s pioneering nuclear energy company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant products and technologies to utilities throughout the world.

    (BTW, the link is about Toshiba, Westinghouse, and Exelon Nuclear Partners collaborating on nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia.)

    As reported on January 11, 2013 at this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, Toshiba was looking to sell off part of the ownership:


    The Tokyo company is looking to shed potentially up to 36 percent of its majority stake in Westinghouse, a move that would deliver billions to a cash-strapped Toshiba.

    It’s hard to say what effect a sale might have on Westinghouse’s Cranberry headquarters, especially since Toshiba would still own at least 51 percent of Westinghouse. (…)

    36% + 51% = 87%, not 100%.

  195. Roger Sowell says:

    @ phlogiston, you are very wrong.

    You wrote: “You however are part of a much larger team of antinuke cheerleaders. You are a lawyer. You do not understand science and cannot. To fantasise that you do is a dangerous illusion.”

    I am indeed a lawyer, and am very happy and proud to be one. I also, which I suspect you did not know until now, hold a B.S. in chemical engineering, and practiced and consulted world-wide in that field for more than two decades, primarily in oil refining, petrochemicals, natural gas processing, basic chemicals, and power generation. I also have formal training at university level in nuclear power plant processes and design. I also have formal training at university level in economics, especially engineering economics of large projects. My projects over the years have ranged in size from multiple billions in US$ to projects under $1 million. I have performed detailed economic analyses of large nuclear power plants with multiple reactors ($10 to $25 billion), small and large oil refineries of simple fuels production and complex fully-integrated petrochemicals complexes (over $10 billion), power plant designs and economic cost/benefit analyses of coal-fired, natural gas-fired, hydroelectric, pumped storage hydroelectric, wind, solar both PV and thermal with and without storage, and cogeneration plants using various forms of biomass. I am a professional speaker on these and other matters.

    I submit to you that I do know whereof I speak in engineering, some aspects of science, and the economics. I have the credentials and satisfied customers and clients to back it up.

    Since there seem to be, even at this late date on this thread, a number of pro-nuclear activists who want to argue, I will give a brief outline of why nuclear power is dead and shall remain so. This is an outline of sorts, of a more detailed article I am preparing that I hope will be posted by WUWT.

    Nuclear power can be, and is, opposed by rational, thinking and good-intentioned people for a number of excellent reasons: including safety, environmental damage, perpetual toxic waste stewardship, risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown, unjustifiable use of precious and scarce fresh water, production of bomb-making material, and others. I plan to address each of those issues in future articles, but the issue of prime importance, aside from all the others above-mentioned, is nuclear power economics. Multiple, unbiased, economic studies have shown that fully-costed nuclear power must sell for at least $250 to $300 per MWH (25 to 30 cents per kWh) at the wholesale level. New safety requirements add another few cents per kWh. To a residential customer, that nuclear-based power must have added to it transmission and distribution costs of at least another 7 to 10 cents per kWh. I referenced one such study in a comment above, from 2009 and the California Energy Commission cost comparison study. It is obvious from observing the recent efforts to build new nuclear power plants in the US that per-reactor costs are at least $8 billion, and will likely reach $10 billion or more.

    My basic premise is that those of us who can have an impact on such issues as electrical power generation choices, should engage and bring the facts to light. I strongly believe that it is very wrong, unconscionable even, to build an electric power system such that the poor, elderly, and those who barely get by month to month have higher electric bills than are absolutely necessary. With fully-costed nuclear power to residential customers priced at 40 cents per kWh, when it should and could be only 10 to 12 cents, is simply wrong. Those who presently pay $200 per month for electricity must pay $800 per month, on average. In peak consumption months, their bill will be much higher. That forces them to make hard choices between using electricity and buying food.

    My article will show that the two other major categories of electrical customers, commercial users and industrial users, will face far greater increases in their power prices than would the residential customer, if nuclear power is fully endorsed. Industrial users will face price increases of 8 to 10 times what they pay at present. That forces them into extremely non-competitive postures, especially where electricity is a substantial portion of their operating costs.

    But, nuclear power is far worse, economically, than 40 cents per kWh. My article will address this, and discuss several reasons why nuclear power plants cost such incredible amounts at present. The costs have nothing to do with spurious lawsuits, as some have stated. Sound engineering and basic nuclear physics are the primary reasons.

    Finally, I receive, as here, numerous slanders and insults. That really does not bother me, as I receive far worse in daily practice as an attorney. I actually laugh at such insults, as it shows me that those hurling the insults have lost.

    I look forward to finishing my first article on nuclear economics, and hopefully having it posted here for all to dissect and discuss. I suspect it will bring forth an entire chorus of bad-mouthing and insults. The timing is not good this week and for the next several weeks, with the IPCC report being front and center at the moment.

  196. Mario Lento says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 24, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    “Nuclear power can be, and is, opposed by rational, thinking and good-intentioned people for a number of excellent reasons: including safety, environmental damage, perpetual toxic waste stewardship, risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown, unjustifiable use of precious and scarce fresh water, production of bomb-making material, and others.”
    +++++++++++
    First you go on telling us you’re an engineer and then you produce opinions (many political and opinionated by not based in substance). You’ve raise some points that cannot go without comment.

    Each on of your points quoted below is not from an engineering perspective. However, if you told me you were preaching from a political perspective, I’d be more understanding of your confusion of the facts.

    Safety:
    As far as safety record, nuclear’s record is far better than other energy industries. Look at injuries, accidents that lead to death and give me some numbers. Please don’t go on obfuscating scary make believe things with hand waiving. One could make the assertion that the airline industry suffers most of these “potential” problems like planes blowing up and melting. How about using this “rational thinking” of yours and make the case for ridding autos since they are a dangerous mode of transportation?

    “Environmental damage”
    Compared to what (in a per kWh produced)?

    “Perpetual Toxic Waster stewardship”
    The spent fuel rods have over 80% of their value in them, France knows this and reprocesses. We do not for political reasons.

    “Risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown”
    Really, what risk? Are you talking about hydrogen gas build up? Define catastrophic and compare damage to other industries. And what is the risk associated with that catastrophe?

    “Unjustified use of water”
    Compared to what? Where does the water go? It evaporates and comes back down again as precipitation.

    “production of bomb-making material”
    If we want to make bombs, we could. Are you suggesting we dump nuclear because it can reduce U235 into bomb making isotopes and then we could make bombs?

    “and others”
    Please give something from an engineering perspective, Mr. Lawyer.

  197. Janice Moore says:

    GO, MARIO!

    Excellent refutation of that ignorant zealot’s spew.

    Hope you are now HOME!

  198. RACookPE1978 says:

    Notice that the NRC, the agency solely responsible for declaring the Toshiba-holding company “illegal” to continue construction and design at the South Texas Project, IS a political organization in Obama’s denial government. The NRC is NOT run by an engineer or even a physics or science major, but is run by Nevada Senator Harry Reid former legislative admin assistant. He was specifically put in charge of the NRC to ensure that the Nevada open-air nuclear bomb test site was not approved as the long-term disposal site for burying encapsulated nuclear waste from nuclear power plants.

    There are right now NO qualified companies in the United States able to make reactor pressure vessels, nuclear steam generators, or any other major primary containment equipment.

  199. John Whitman:

    I understand your post at September 24, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1425719
    to consist solely of evasion and obfuscation.

    I complained to you in an earlier post (at September 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm) saying

    You started debate of this subject so it would be helpful if you were to engage in the debate instead of merely iterating your disputed opinion. If you disagree with what I said then please say, but don’t pretend it was not said.

    Your reply (at September 22, 2013 at 5:03 pm) was to evade that complaint by arrogantly saying to me

    Please wait your turn..

    Well, I did “wait {my} turn” and have obtained your post which I am answering and it is ‘more of the same’.

    I defined science and pseudoscience. You avoid those definitions saying

    I am very careful to give unto science that which the history of science shows is within the messy self-correction process of science. The IPCC’s manifold incorrect (for whatever reason) science processes are being identified by the broader science community and should be eventually discredited / refuted, as historically happened to incorrect science. I find no useful meaning of a new concept to form around pseudo-science within that context.

    Bollocks! There is nothing new in identifying pseudoscience!
    Astrology, palmistry, phrenology and etc. are NOT new.

    You are using the Oldberg method of obfuscation to pretend the IPCC is a scientific enterprise that has made some mistakes which “is within the messy self-correction process of science”.

    Simply, you are propagandising in support of the IPCC. To refute that nonsense I can do no better than to copy a post I provided on another thread and another post on that thread I provided earlier today. They are as follows.

    The first is at September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1424570
    {quote}
    Several people have posted comments which suggest the IPCC AR5 should not be a political document but should be a scientific document.

    That suggestion displays ignorance of the official nature and purpose of the IPCC.

    The stipulated nature and purpose of the IPCC is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern IPCC work. These are at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    Near its beginning that IPCC document says

    ROLE
    2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
    The IPCC exists to provide
    (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
    and
    (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” that would be “policies”.

    Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide.

    This “Role” is pure politics acting behind a mask which resembles science; i.e. Lysenkoism.
    {end of quote}

    The second of my posts I am copying from the other thread is at September 25, 2013 at 3:36 am. It is awaiting moderation presumably because of its many links (so I suppose this post will also go to moderation).

    It is addressed to Richard Verney and includes this.
    {quote}
    The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.

    This is clearly and unambiguously stated as being the “Role” of the IPCC as stated in the IPCC “Principles”.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
    Importantly, throughout the entire existence of the IPCC, the Signatories to the UN FCCC and the IPCC have adopted, confirmed and enacted that “Role”.

    The IPCC was created to have three Working Groups (WG). These WGs operate simultaneously and provide their Reports at the same time. Their duties are
    Working Group I: The Scientific Basis.
    https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/
    Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/
    Working Group III: Mitigation, Synthesis Report.
    http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/
    A scientific operation of those WGs would be for the contents of a WG1 Report to be used by WG2 in its deliberations, and then the contents of a WG2 Report to be used by WG3 in its deliberations of “mitigation”.

    The IPCC has NEVER done that.

    In accordance with the IPCC Role,
    WG1 collates and reports scientific information supportive of AGW
    WG2 assesses ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ to AGW, and
    WG3 proposes options for mitigation of AGW.
    Importantly, they operate and report simultaneously with each WG accepting as a given – and in accordance with the IPCC Role – that AGW does have a “science base”, is sufficient to provide impacts that require adaption because of vulnerability so demand options for mitigation.

    The Synthesis Report is then compiled from the contents of the WG1, WG2 and WG3 Reports.

    This is a purely political process for purely political reasons. Indeed, the Report of each IPCC WG is approved ‘line by line’ by politicians and/or the representatives of politicians. Scientific reports are reviews by scientists and are NOT approved by politicians. .

    This purely political – definitely NOT scientific – Role of the IPCC is deliberate and it is frequently reviewed to ensure it is maintained. The most recent approvals by FCCC Signatory governments are
    at Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998,
    and amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003),
    approved at the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and
    again approved at the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

    Your claims that these demonstrable realities area “cynical view” are spin without foundation.

    The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
    {end quote}

    Richard

  200. Roger Sowell says:

    @Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra. An industry that is worse, even, than climate science for distortions, lies, closing ranks to protect the guilty, and cover-ups. Why do you wish an economic disaster on poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by? Have you no compassion?

    My first point, as I wrote above, is the economics. The other defects of nuclear power will be addressed later.

    My article will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power.

    To Janice Moore, no refuting was done by your hero Mario – he simply parroted time-worn talking points.

  201. dbstealey:

    This is a comment pertaining to my post to you at at September 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm which asked you not to stop the Punch and Judy show.

    In that post I wrote

    Please do not encourage Roger Sowell to desist.
    I ask because I am enjoying the Punch and Judy show.

    Sowell has had his ‘accident’ with the ‘baby’ of truth and he is still beating up on the ‘Judy’ of reason.
    You have arrived like the constable to restore order but too soon.
    Sowell has yet to deal with the sausages and I eagerly await the surreal form of the crocodile.

    Please allow him to continue to his traditional self destruction. Remember, if he continues then the hangman awaits.

    The sausages have arrived!
    Toby the dog (in the form of several commentators) has devoured the nonsense about windfarms from Roger Sowell so he is now holding the next sausage in his ravings about nuclear power. Toby has started to nibble that one, too, and looks certain to devour it. But (at September 25, 2013 at 6:56 am) Mr Punch has promised to drive Toby away by presenting the crocodile in the form of an “article {which} will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power”.

    I wonder what colour the crocodile will be. Green is traditional.

    Richard

  202. davidmhoffer says:

    If Mr Sowell has the credentials he claims, then one can only wring one’s hands in despair at the utter failure of the higher education system.

  203. John Whitman says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) on September 24, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    - – - – - – - -

    kadaka (KD Knoebel),

    Thanks for your due diligence.

    87% works.

    The Westinghouse nuclear org is a US registered company who does have capability to license per the NRC process.

    I cannot see the current NRC position being able to withstand challenge.

    John

  204. phlogiston says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 24, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    My personal comments to you were not appropriate, my apologies.

    The essential problem with your position is that it does not correspond to historical fact. We are not talking about a new technology someone has just invented. The nuclear industry is well into its second half-century, with thousands of reactor-years of safe operation. Nuclear accidents typical of all industries have been massively inflated by paranoic radiophobia. In rational terms they are unremarkable compared to accidents in other industries, Bhopal etc. Real deaths from Chernobyl for example are less than 200 from radiation, but many more from social and psycological stress of entirely unnecessary relocation of people. But the belief (this is all it is) of most of the European public for example is that tens / hundreds of thousands of the deaths that routinely occur due to human non-immortality have been claimed for radiation fallout. Even the much vilified Russian RBMK reactors of Chernobyl type had an acceptable safety record and provided many countries a sizeable chunk of their electricity for many decades.

    And as I have argued, the costs of nuclear are so grossly distorted by irrational and abusive regulatory requirements and political overheads that meaningful economic analysis of the nuclear industry is hardly really possible.

    [p.s. the most serious safety issue of the nuclear era was not connected to power generation but the military. We now learn that an H bomb falling from a stricken B52 over north Carolina in 1961 started a detonation sequence and was only stopped from going off by a single faulty electrical switch. ]

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24183879

  205. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Nuclear power is so dead in the US, it is growing new plants.

    From the SCANA Corporation website, Investor Relations, selected Nuclear Development Updates, go there for links:

    May 22, 2013 – SCE&G Placed Unit 2 Containment Vessel Bottom Head

    SCE&G placed the containment vessel bottom head in the Unit 2 nuclear site on May 22, 2013…

    August 14, 2013 – SCE&G Files BLRA Status Report for 2nd Quarter, 2013

    SCE&G filed its BLRA Status Report for the 2nd Quarter, 2013 with the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, providing updated information on the status of construction of V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3.

    August 30, 2013 – Media Day Held at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station

    About 15 members of the South Carolina media gathered at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station to hear the latest updates on the new nuclear development project and see the construction for themselves.

    September 18, 2013 – Public Service Commission of South Carolina Approves SCE&G Rate Adjustment Under Base Load Review Act

    On September 18, 2013, the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (SCPSC) approved an increase of $67,240,232 or approximately 2.87 percent to the retail electric rates of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), principal subsidiary of SCANA Corporation. The new rates will be effective for bills rendered on and after October 30, 2013. Otherwise, the report for the second quarter filed by SCE&G with the SCPSC on August 14, 2013 pursuant to the provisions of the Base Load Review Act continues to be accurate in all material respects.

    Links there to picture albums and videos of and about the construction.

    I found out about it following a mention in an earlier Google search result that had popped up. Dec 21, 2012, Forbes, Why It’s The End Of The Line For Wind Power, where they refer to an ATI report available at link, Wind Power Costs Almost Twice ‘Official’ Estimates:


    As Taylor figures it, natural gas would need to cost upwards of $20 per mmBTU before gas-fired power would cost as much as wind.

    Taylor and Tanton figure that at the current price of natural gas, and before counting any subsidies or transmission costs, ratepayers are paying about $8.5 billion more this year for electricity from wind than they would have paid if it were gas-fired power. That amount doesn’t even include the cost of the direct federal subsidies.

    What’s more, ratepayers will have to shoulder that cost for as long as the turbines are in operation. That’s $8.5 billion a year that ratepayers are forking over to subsidize a less efficient, more expensive technology; $8.5 billion that could otherwise be invested in natural gas electricity, or better yet, nuclear.

    Just think, in South Carolina, power company Scana and its partners are investing about $11 billion to construct two 1,100 mw nuclear reactors on roughly 1,000 acres. To get the same amount of electricity out of wind (remember that turbines operate at an average of less than 50% capacity because of wind’s intermittancy) and you’d need more than 1,700 turbines stretched across 200,000 acres, for an upfront investment of $8.8 billion. The nukes might cost more upfront, but they last longer, they provide reliable base load power and they emit zero carbon.

    I did find mention of a project delay, June 5, 2013 Reuters piece:


    In a presentation, Scana said Unit 2, which was expected to enter service in March 2017, will instead likely enter service between the fourth quarter of 2017 and the first quarter of 2018.

    Scana said this was due in part to delays in delivery of some components from a unit of construction contractor Chicago Bridge & Iron Co NV (CB&I) from its Lake Charles, Louisiana facility.

    CB&I and Westinghouse Electric are building two 1,117-megawatt Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for Scana’s South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) utility and South Carolina-owned Santee Cooper at the Summer site.

    Searching further, Chicago Bridge & Iron has a long history of constructing large tanks and pressure vessels, including for nuclear projects. Further research for confirmation required, but it appears they are a qualified company in the United States than can make reactor pressure vessels.

  206. John Whitman says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) on September 25, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    Nuclear power is so dead in the US, it is growing new plants.

    - – - – - – -

    kadaka (KD Knoebel),

    Regarding CBI, yes they supplied US sited nuclear reactors with major components.

    Yes, in the last 25 odd years who supplied the worlds major nuclear components? Not CBI. They have predominately been supplied by the Japanese or Koreans or European consortiums. Mostly Japanese.

    Was the basis of awarding CBI a contact because it was the lowest priced bidder by a factor of ~2 or more over European or Asia makers? Was it because it was a domestic supplier?

    I am interested. Was the sourcing descision exclusive of a wider purview of globally sourced quality and delivery?

    John

  207. Mario Lento says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 25, 2013 at 6:56 am
    @Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra. An industry that is worse, even, than climate science for distortions, lies, closing ranks to protect the guilty, and cover-ups. Why do you wish an economic disaster on poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by? Have you no compassion?

    My first point, as I wrote above, is the economics. The other defects of nuclear power will be addressed later.

    My article will fully address inherent engineering defects of nuclear power.

    To Janice Moore, no refuting was done by your hero Mario – he simply parroted time-worn talking points.
    +++++++++++++
    Roger: You’re out of your league here.

    I expected your non-response and you fell into the trap ever so predictably. You promise to dig up something for later. Your weird claims to garner emotional attention related to ” poor, elderly, and families struggling to get by” ring hollow when your recommendations lead to energy poverty, which effects who? Yes – you know the answer Mr. Lawyer.

    Nothing you’ve said, literally nothing, can be substantiated, and it’s documented here for all to see. We already know here at WUWT, that parroting puts one into the difficult-to-defend position of explaining away other people’s words. What’s so ironic is that your words were implanted into your grey matter by someone else, and you have proven to have no basis by which to support your claims. Engineer? Really?

    So here’s a teaching moment for you, if you so choose to better yourself. Here’s your assignment:

    Give us some observations, data, and facts and then quantify them like an engineer. Then we can test your claims against observations.

    Janice, I am back and working in my chosen work in process control again. The plant is in good shape and energy continues to be produced!

  208. Mario Lento says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm
    @ davidmhoffer,

    You Attacked the messenger, but cannot refute the message. This is a sure sign you have lost the argument. You are indeed a loser!

    Argue the facts, sir!

    Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?

    You have lost, again.
    +++++++++++++
    Roger: Seriously, as a lawyer, you should know you are not the judge or jury… you’re the fool who sometimes has to argue a case where he know’s he’s wrong. You confuse yourself to be someone who understands facts. I just don’t see any sign of an engineer in you.

    Regarding your statement “Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?”

    It’s entertaining that someone of your ilk can call davidmhoffer wrong when you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about. You constantly forget things you’ve said and the contradictions and lack of understanding of concepts makes you look foolish and arrogant.

    It is true coal is no longer a greater provider in the US than natural gas. But, this has to do with politics not economics. Maybe too logical for you to understand. Ask Europe why they are building so many dirty coal plants –even though coal there is far more costly than US coal cleaner coal sources.

    I rest my case.

  209. Mario Lento says:

    Roger Sowell: This post is for you. Listen carefully. The switch from nuclear to Green has been painful for the German Economy and the people who have experienced what people like you foist upon the world caused pain. Nuclear will be the answer, Mr. Lawyer who does not understand economics. We have real world experiments to watch and learn from. Either learn or be ignorant of world lessons.

    http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/09/23/merkel-must-fix-energy-policy-german-ind?videoId=273870066&videoChannel=1#!

  210. Just watched a public forum on TV in Oz with David Suzuki as guest.
    He seems like a nice person – reminds me of Christopher Hutchins . Both of these people always seemed astonished that true, intelligent examination is not possible of emotive subjects.
    However, last night David did bravely spend time pointing out that against the PR Machine of Our Owners, little can be done. Even mentioned the “C” word.
    “Conspiracy” is as taboo a word as the euphemism for specific female anatomy was before the Black Rap Movement.
    Think Titanic and deck chairs……….
    THe whole Alternative Energy Movement is a farce, simply prestidigitation, beautifully managed.

    Energy waste is not easy to resolve financially. Dead easy technically.
    Some time ago, a brilliant young bunch in Oz did some great work on energy waste reduction and the numbers looked better than going nuclear! Simple stuff: reduce speed limits, penalise fun-flying, make fuel expensive enough to force public transport use – like that.
    Strangely, they have vanished.

  211. THe end of the Nuclear Debate:
    1. watch a movie or two about Chenobyl and Fukishima – oh, and the two well-hidden U.S. events.
    2. Who is going to store the ever-growing nuclear waste produced – meaning where?
    3. A simple cost projection of the maintenance of “safe” storage for oh, say, just 50,000 years.

    Side note: I’ve become a fan of an old TV series: “Air Crash Investigations” in Oz. I’m amazed that a lot more of these complex machines and with their careful engineered maintenance aren’t falling out of the sky.
    Oh, they do??

  212. Brad Keyes says:

    Interesting that you mention Hitchens, who is also quoted upthread in relation to Stalinism.

    It was Hitchens—and the lip-service he paid to CAGWism—that first made me realize you don’t need a low IQ to believe the alarmist story. All you need is a (self-confessed, in Hitchens’ case) lack of formal scientific education. Pseudoscience is called pseudoscience because it looks like science to the unwary eye. Still, I must admit to some sadness over the fact that one of my intellectual heroes was gulled into mistaking ecneics for science.

  213. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 25, 2013 at 5:09 am

    @John Whitman

    - – - – - – - -

    richardscourtney,

    Thanks for giving me your response in turn in your schedule, we all have our own schedules. Appreciate your discussion.

    Your argument is that a new concept of pseudo-science cannot be formed outside of current scientific principles and processes that you articulated quite well. My argument is a concept is needed in the broader philosophical venue than physical science. I am providing that concept.

    How did science get to the state we see within the IPCC? If science within itself was the sufficient and necessary explanation then one can’t see how science came to such a state. A broader philosophical set of concepts and systems are in play here.

    There is a clear anti-science irrational movement in western philosophy. It developed in open philosophical proceedings, it wasn’t and isn ‘t counter cultural; it was developed within the mainstream of philosophy. An important and perhaps the single sufficient thrust of the movement started with Kant in the 18th century. Its rapid morphing into the recognized sub movements of today (some of them listed in my last post) is legend to students of rational philosophy. You suggest that is indication of obfuscation on my part. In response I have a polite no comment on your allegation.

    It looks to me like the IPCC is an important and necessary realization of the anti-science irrational movement in western philosophy. I maintain the philosophy must be critically presented in order for the culture to see its nature as irrational and to refute it. A pseudo-science conception in that regard will be cognitively critical.

    For my part the most important next step is to show how irrational philosophy’s anti-science devalued science and its processes came to be cloaked in a perception of rational science. And then and only then to observe the articulations of the IPCC Bureau members’ explicit philosophical justifications of their management of the IPCC, to see if there are explicit realizations of irrational philosophic anti-science.

    I conclude this comment with the observation that successful (real) physical science needs a systematic integrated supporting rational philosophy; it cannot exist by itself in a full or partial philosophical vacuum lest it perish from irrational philosophies containing anti-science ideas.

    John

    PS – as to your relationship with Oldberg: Oldberg is to Whitman as Courtney is to Whitman as Lindzen is to Whitman as Victor Hugo is to Whitman as Watts is to Whitman as etc etc etc etc . . . : ) We are all our own intellectual identities and it is envigoring to see the working of pretty good intellects. I love it.

  214. John Whitman:

    I am replying to your post at September 26, 2013 at 8:00 am.

    My post at September 25, 2013 at 5:09 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1426178
    completely refuted your attempted excusing of IPCC pseudoscience.

    My post explained – with links to complete and irrefutable documentary evidence – that
    The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.

    Your reply that I am answering ignores all that and reboots to your default position.
    Nice try but total failure.

    Among all your long-winded twaddle in excuse of the IPCC, your post I am answering adds a question; viz.

    How did science get to the state we see within the IPCC?

    “Science” did NOT “get to the state we see within the IPCC”. You are attempting to pretend that IPCC pseudoscience is science but merely poor science. IT IS NOT.

    The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.

    Read what I wrote and dispute it if you want, but your iterating your propaganda is tiresome.

    Richard

  215. Roger Sowell says:

    @ Mario Lento

    You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.

    Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.

    They are still laughing, at you.

  216. Roger Sowell:

    re your post at September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am addressed to Mario Lento.

    No, you have lost sight of the plot. That is the sort of fatuous excuse you are supposed to say to the constable when he arrives. You don’t say it to Toby while he is eating your sausages.

    I know that variations to traditional Punch and Judy now exist, but confusing Toby for the constable is far, far to untraditional.

    Richard

  217. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am
    @ Mario Lento
    You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.
    Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.
    They are still laughing, at you.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You must be very fortunate to have clients with an even poorer grasp of the facts than do you. If they exist at all.

  218. Brad Keyes says:

    Friends, consider the notorious question:

    “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    I submit that the person who wrote these words didn’t know enough about science to hate it, let alone to impersonate a practitioner of it. These are the words of a literal (ha ha) scientific illiterate.

    This suggests to me that both the antiscience and the pseudoscience models of the climate movement will always be incomplete, at least as regards the foot-soldiers—or the dumber foot-soldiers, at least; people like the hapless Professor Jones, above.

    I appreciate that this doesn’t prove or disprove any theory about the IPCC’s agenda, given that its corporate “IQ” is at least a digit higher than Jones’; but I’m throwing it out there for thought.

    Not that anyone asked, but my current thinking is that the climate movement represents the inevitable, 30-years-in-the-making ascension to cultural and discursive power of a clade of parasciences—which I hope I won’t offend anyone by enumerating broadly as the ecological, environmental, Carsonian or (grandiosely) “systems” sciences—a retarded cousin of actual science. Considering how pathological, how oncological, these “disciplines” are I’d say they’ve done less damage to the world than they might have, being until recently (largely) preoccupied with calculating the angels on the head of a pin, the thousands of “species” that “go extinct” every minute, or some other variant on the kind of fantasy-football league that consumes the office hours of Arts academics.

    With the advent of the climate movement, however, these parasciences, which were previously only in a position to immiserate, impoverish and kill a few million brown and black people, are now beginning to seriously inconvenience white folk.

    They must be stopped! *

    But even if “para-” turns out to be le préfixe juste, it doesn’t mean that the climate movement itself isn’t also pseudoscientific.

    In fact (and at the risk of obviousness), “pseudo-” doesn’t exclude “sub-”, “pre-,” “a-”, “anti-”, “praeter-”, “counter-”, “neo-,” “mal-”, etc. It is, at least when I say it!, simply a functional acknowledgment of the fact that half the population has managed to confuse the non-science of climate eschatology with actual, you know, science… which is a whole nother rant. Thanks for reading!

    * Yes, for the benefit of any SS kidz designated to read this thread: that was meant to be a sick joke.

  219. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am

    [. . .]

    Read what I wrote and dispute it if you want, but your iterating your propaganda is tiresome.

    Richard

    - – - – - – - -

    richardscourtney,

    Your response was very welcome.

    Politics are well known to have profound philosophical bases.

    If, as you said in your latest comment, the IPCC is primarily political then its ‘pseudo-science’ has a definite philosophical base because all politics does. So up to that point we seem, per your last comment, to have agreement.

    I go one step past you to identify the philosophy is anti-science irrationalism. We need not identify what the related politics are right now, only that they exist within the IPCC Bureau.

    As to your reference to propaganda, I politely respond with no comment, as a dispassionate responder should after very very slowly counting to 1000. : )

    John

  220. John Whitman:

    re your series of posts culminating in your post at September 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm.

    You seem to think that rude and boorish behaviour is excusable when presented in facetious and prim language. It is not.

    You asked for a discussion. I gave you argument supported by documented evidence. You repeatedly ignored everything I said and four times repeated your unsubstantiated propaganda.

    I am more than willing to have a discussion, but I refuse to be a tool in your disinformation campaign.

    Richard

  221. Mario Lento says:

    Roger Sowell says:
    September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am
    @ Mario Lento

    You wrote : “You’re out of your league here”.

    Thanks for the laugh! I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients.

    They are still laughing, at you.
    ++++++++++++
    Well now Roger, you surely know how to avoid discussing topics based in facts. But then, that is what you learned in law school. Call people names, bring in claims that people who know one knows, claim to be on your side. Build a facade.

    When I was younger, I surrounded myself with people whom I thought were better than me in various ways. I aspired to take on those trait that I admired. Some other people, surround themselves with fools, so they can feel smart.

    Two conclusions here:
    1) Roger is not used to dealing with people who understand what they are talking about.
    2) Roger’s friends whom he claim are laughing at me, are dumber than even Roger.

  222. Mario Lento says:

    Roger Sowel: debating style

    what he writes about himself
    “I passed your astute observation along to some of my engineering and energy clients and they are laughing at you”
    “I clearly have a fine grasp of economics, which is why I refuted your writings above.”

    He goes on an on about his credentials, but then only has opinions not based in data or fact, and calls people names who know better.

    Examples quotations of Sowell’s attempts to discredit people:

    “Good day, losers”
    “You are indeed a loser”
    “Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.”
    “If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.”
    “Mario Lento, you are simply chanting the pro-nuclear mantra”

  223. Mario Lento:

    re your post at September 26, 2013 at 5:20 pm.

    Yes, everybody has noticed. I have been comparing his behaviour to that of Mr Punch. Perhaps you don’t know the traditional Punch and Judy show at the British seaside. Wicki gives this description
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy

    Also you may care to do a Ctrl-f for Punch then press return repeatedly to follow my comments on the matter in this thread.

    Richard

  224. Mario Lento says:

    richardscourtney: writes: “Yes, everybody has noticed. I have been comparing his behaviour to that of Mr Punch. Perhaps you don’t know the traditional Punch and Judy show at the British seaside. Wicki gives this description
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy

    Yes – I had forgotten about Punch and Judy…. I had seen them as a kid, thank you for raising awareness of his likeness. Very appropriate use for comparison Richard! I just had to jump in here, as mr. lawyer was using old fashioned slimeball tactical attempts to distract people from his avoidance of truth and fact. His stated resume does not fit his image here in front of so many who see him for what he is.

    With people like Sowell, there is no exchange of knowledge, just political theatre.

  225. Janice Moore says:

    “…clients with an even poorer grasp of the facts than do you.” (David Hoffer) LOL. Or, perhaps, Sowell is working pro bono; those clients will laugh at anything you want them to.

    Well, Mr. Green Eyes Sowell, my “hero” convinced me. Your attempt to persuade did not. In other words, he refuted you. I hold for Lento, et. al.. (BANG! — gavel down)

    Whether or not the RPC’s (Rules of Professional Conduct) for your state address civility, did you not take an “Oath of Attorney” when you were sworn in? Your discourteous, rude, disingenuous, behavior at WUWT is a disgrace to the legal profession. Your fellow attorneys care, even if your clients do not. That you are KNOWN to be an attorney here makes it even more imperative that you behave in a manner that is above reproach. It is lawyers like you that inspire all the lawyer jokes.

    You may not a hero, but, take heart! You are an inspiration.

    ******************

    @ Mario Lento, so glad you made it back safely and all is well.

    GOOD FOR YOU, WUWT Science Giants, heroes all, for dignifying Mr. Sowell’s obfuscations and ignorance with such thoughtful responses. There are many of us out here, silently reading along, grateful for your taking the time to help us find out the truth.

  226. Mario Lento says:

    Janice: I love your critiques… and textual imagery.
    Mario

  227. Janice Moore says:

    @ Mario. Thanks!

  228. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 26, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    @John Whitman:

    re your series of posts culminating in your post at September 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm.

    You seem to think that rude and boorish behaviour is excusable when presented in facetious and prim language. It is not.

    You asked for a discussion. I gave you argument supported by documented evidence. You repeatedly ignored everything I said and four times repeated your unsubstantiated propaganda.

    I am more than willing to have a discussion, but I refuse to be a tool in your disinformation campaign.

    Richard

    - – - – - – - -

    richardscourtney,

    Once again thanks for your persistence in engaging. In the next open thread where my schedule permits me to participate, I will address the history in philosophy of the idea / concept of anti-science irrationalism (which is my concept of pseudo-science) and investigate the explicit philosophies of key members of the IPCC bureau.

    Yes, I did find it personally affronting that your initial discourse weakened to essentially just pejorative accusations in the last two or three comments. But, as I indicated in a previous comment, when it occurred I started counting very very slowly to 1000. It neutralized the effect of your pejoratives.

    John

  229. John Whitman:

    re your post at September 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm.

    I used no “pejoratives”. I was extremely polite in my respopnses to your persistent arrogant rudeness. In light of your lack of appreciation I shall not bother to be so restrained if confronted with similar behaviour from you in future.

    Richard

  230. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 27, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    &John Whitman

    re your post at September 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm.

    I used no “pejoratives”. I was extremely polite in my respopnses to your persistent arrogant rudeness. In light of your lack of appreciation I shall not bother to be so restrained if confronted with similar behaviour from you in future.

    Richard

    - – - – - – - -

    richardscourtney,

    998 . . . 999 . . . 1000

    Thanks for your latest comment.

    You do not consider these pejoratives in benevolent civil discussion?

    -disinformation campaign

    -tool

    -propaganda

    -facetious

    -boorish

    -arrogant

    Your references , from the beginning to the end of your comments, to political causation of IPCC incorrect science (your pseudo science) is not sufficient to explain why it would necessarily occur in the IPCC nor does it explain the form and context it takes. I am looking, rather, for fundamental root cause of their preference for irrational looking ‘science’ options versus rational. Your politics focus does not explain that. Rather certain metaphysical and epistemological concepts at the core of irrational philosophy do provide access to the root cause. I suggest that will yield the approach to ‘science’ that is at the most fundamental concept of ‘pseudo-science’.

    It is what I will expand on at the next opportunity.

    John

  231. John Whitman:

    My explanations and documented evidence provided complete explanation. You chose to ignore them and to spout your propaganda repeatedly.

    You say you intend to provide more concern trolling on behalf of the IPCC. Whatever twaddle you come up with I will refute with documented evidence.

    Until then I shall ignore any more of your pointless posts. They are becoming as tiresome as you.

    Richard

  232. Mario Lento says:

    John Whitman says:
    September 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    richardscourtney on September 27, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    You do not consider these pejoratives in benevolent civil discussion?

    -disinformation campaign

    -tool

    -propaganda

    -facetious

    -boorish

    -arrogant
    ++++++++++++++++
    John: For something to be Pejorative, doesn’t it need to meet some qualification? If the terms truly represent the said behavior, then we could describe the words truthful, especially in light of the fact that plenty of evidence supports the correct use of such words.

    It has been well established that the intent of the IPCC is to prove that man kind needs to be blamed on what nature does irrespective of evidence to the contrary. And then, they make recommendations of how policy makers should act. At a certain point, the IPCC realized that it was deceiving people, this is known. And to recommend that policy makers act on information which is knowingly deceptive needs to be called out. This is what science is about… being critical, which the IPCC does not want.
    Now, my definitions of the IPCC could be pejorative in the sense that you use the word. You sound like an educated man trying to make excuses for really bad behavior.

    Thank goodness people like Richard call you out for supporting such drivel. I think I have established the meaning of drivel, pejorative or not.

Comments are closed.