Voting closed TODAY Jan 13 at 5PM Eastern, 2PM Pacific time.
Preliminary ending numbers are available here
Thanks to everyone who participated. The results won’t be final until reviewed by the judges/operators. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. – Anthony
Benjamin P. (16:50:57) :
All fossil fuels, all uranium, and every other non-renewable source of energy is just that…non-renewable.
How do you know that so called “fossil fuels” are non-renewable ? Perhaps uranium is the only “fossil fuel” that isn’t renewable because it decays into lead.
But coal, oil, natural gas, they are products of nature. Of course they are renewable. Co2 isn’t expelled from the planet. It is gobbled up by algae, embedded in the soil as fecal matter. It coats the seabed as detrus, and is continually sucked from the air by plantlife. Your comment shows zero concept of the many times that the individual carbon atom in oil has been recycled.
Congrats to Anthony and all the people who make this a great place to visit.
Ben P; (and further to what Jeff Alberts said).
Re: Your comments about finite fuels.
Why do we need to move off fossil fuels? Applying the K.I.S. principle, money is a tool. It is mercury of the economy. It relates to us the underlying value of a certain piece of asset as interpreted by the market. In order to provide this market value, each individual (data point if you wish) says what s/he will pay for it. In that decision are thousands of factors. Very few are overtly considered. Note: the vast majority of factors are not considered. Some factors considered are:
• foreign political risk, scarcity of material
• production cost
• domestic political environment
• competitive environment amongst many others.
As I said, when the market looks at these factors, it comes up with a price. Included in that price are ALL FUTURE EXPECTATIONS. As our new found, self admitted troll, Nichole, proclaimed, the sun is for all intent and purpose, infinite. If coal is less expensive, why do we want to go solar/wind? We can control the real pollutants, i.e. SO2, NO2, O3, etc. but NOT CO2, why would we not use it? We have thousands of years of it left. The sun and wind aren’t going anywhere. Is your risk interpretation correct and the market is wrong? Perhaps, but I doubt it. You are sort of correct in the world will eventually run out. The shortest estimate I’ve read is 200 years we’ll “run out” of oil. I’m confident it will be much longer as we can look at coal liquefaction, improved extraction methods, etc. Nobody really knows when but eventually oil will become scarce enough the cost of extraction will become too high and investment in solar/wind may or may not be worthwhile.
May or may not be worthwhile you ask? Neither you or I have a crystal ball and know what technologies will come? Should we force people to move to a more expensive technology when another may appear? Do I think I’ll see cold fusion in my lifetime? Nope. My children’s? Probably not, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
If we start considering CO2, aka plant food, as a pollutant we overvalue a cost driver on to it and get a distorted picture. It needlessly takes away your and my wealth. If you don’t want that wealth, then so be it. Buy some carbon offsets. It’s up to you. But please, don’t include me. It really isbasic economics. I used to read sites to try to convert me in to catastrophic AGW believer. The best I could come up with is at best, it is a very remote possibility which is becoming more remote everyday. I even think I’m fooling myself with that conclusion. Believe you me, if I could honestly conclude there was any sort of reasonable possibility CO2 was a threat to the earth, I’d be on the bandwagon.
I’m an atheist, and I think that Pharyngula is an embarrassment. I sincerely hope that WUWT has won.
I’m an “atheist”, too, = “non-Supernaturalist”. But how would this also justify being Certifiably Nuts?
Benjamin P says:
“Can you give me your source please.”
Chart showing Phanerazoic Carbon Dioxide
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide_png
“We are at near historical levels if we dig (no pun intended) through the geologic record. What’s interesting is that the earth tends to do things slowly, and can typically handle variations in inputs of CO2 that occur on natural time scales. What takes the earth ~10,000 years to do, humans have done in 100 years wrt CO2 concentrations.”
As to historical levels of CO2, it depends on your time frame. Phanerozoically, we are at low levels and the so called ideal of 290 ppm is exceptionally low over a geologic time frame. The comment about the rate of change sounds like mere whimsy. I could ask for a citation but I won’t.
“On a more general note, I would also like to say I am not advocating one thing or another, only that we keep things grounded in science. The truth lies in science, and as long as we are honest as we approach the problems the truth will be ours at the end of the day. Throwing around half truths and disinformation is a disservice to all.”
I can fully concur with your parting statement. If only Al Gore et al would take it to heart.
you atheists crack me up (no, i’m not making fun of you). i like your sense of humor and willingness to engage in witty, meaningful discussion 🙂
Congrats to all at WUWT- have thoroughly enjoyed the site and the many and varied posts over the year
Mike from Canmore, very nice disquisition on some of the problems involved with pursuing an AGW Utopian wish. Obviously, the AGWer’s strong suit does not include rational thought and science in confrontation with reality.
Congratulations all!
OT: Anyone catch the Lou Dobb’s tonight? Wonderful piece on GW! I recommend trying to catch a re-broadcast if you can.
@ur momisugly Benjamin,
“All fossil fuels, all uranium, and every other non-renewable source of energy is just that…non-renewable.”
Are you sure oil (I assume you mean oil when you say ‘fossil fuel’) is a fossil fuel, let alone non-renewable? There is some evidence that oil is not ‘fossil’ in origin but rather a product of chemistry deep within the crust and is continuing as we speak.
@Benjamin P. (16:50:57) :
Well, to be honest the “not peer reviewed” argument is wearing very thin nowadays, especially after the Mann debacle. In any case the science is not determined by the peer review process, the science is determined by the robust debate that occurs after publication. And there is healthy debate going on between Dr Barrett and some of the IPCC people.
However, there are some important points about the paper that make sense. It shows why the IPCC’s ‘hot spot’ is missing, how the earth can cool happily (as it’s doing now) without any regard for CO2, and it offers a possible insight into why all the GCM projections have been wrong so far.
It is also based on observations of the IR spectra as measured by satellites, rather than the “neato-graphs” you refer to. Also, the only “fun equation” offered is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which is a rather mundane equation, in my opinion. Quite boring, actually.
A lot of what he is saying is simply that the GCMs do not accurately account for the spectral overlap between H2O and CO2, nor the obvious complexities and unknowns of our environment. Therefore they are over-estimating the effect of CO2 on temperature, and this is borne out very well by current observations.
ROTFL!!!
Benjamin P, and others re renewable energy.
Benjamin wrote: “A side-note to all. All fossil fuels, all uranium, and every other non-renewable source of energy is just that…non-renewable. I think it is in all of our interest to be working on alternatives because one day we wont have a choice. Thank goodness for global warming in the Mesozoic because that has done wonders for our cheap energy now. But that cheap energy is running out, and we need to be prepared. Global warming, global cooling, or otherwise I think we can all agree we need to develop renewable energy.”
I personally do not believe we are running out of oil, or coal, or natural gas, and I am not sure about uranium. But whether we are or not, we have a fabulous alternative. It is renewable, as green as can be, and virtually free. Unfortunately, it is not equally available to every nation on earth, and that will create some problems.
I refer to hydrogen, from artificial photosynthesis as discovered in 2004 by scientists in Imperial College, London. They discovered via ultra-microscopy the exact shape and atomic structure of the site in chlorophyll that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, using only sunshine as the energy input.
Within about 15 more years, assuming 20 years from discovery to commercialization, the world will have all the energy ever needed. No need for nuclear plants with their toxic waste products, or uranium mines and enrichment plants with all the environmental destruction associated with that.
No need to burn fossil fuels any more, instead we can use them in their highest-value form, as petrochemicals and pharmaceutical feedstocks.
If anyone is interested, I can provide the link to their publication.
The beauty of this is, should CO2 ever become a problem in the atmosphere, we can pull it back out with what will be virtually free energy.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Benjamin P. (16:50:57) : asks
“I am very curious, if it is all some great energy control conspiracy, what is the end game? What do these folks want to gain? I was talking to one of my students who was sure that it was a conspiracy as well.
“What is the agenda of the conspirators and what do they hope to gain?” I asked. He had no answer.
Perhaps you have an answer for me? “
Here is the answer Ben
When the profiles of the communists and socialists of the 50s- 60s (the “Ho-Ho Chi Ming’s gonna win” crowd) and the current environmentalists are analysed, it is clear that the latter are direct intellectual descendants of the former (at least in my opinion). In his seminal work, Capitalism, George Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that “the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as ‘exploitation,’ ‘monopoly,’ and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity”; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.” The goal of the communists was the destruction of the US society with its emphasis on individual liberties, freedom to choose and commitment to free markets. Since communism failed as an ideology, the apparatchiks have now latched on to a different strategy to achieve their objectives. The goal is the same, but the strategy is different. Such ideologies give rise to dictatorships. Controls on what cars to drive and what light bulbs to use are already in place. What will be next: Maybe where we should live, crammed together in cities; what we should wear, a uniform dress issued twice a year to cut down on the usage of energy in garment manufacture; maybe a uniform vegetarian diet to save on energy for farming? (As Ragendra Pachchauri of the IPCC is even now suggesting). Or James Hansen’s suggestion to use Global Warming to re-distribute wealth.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth
The final outcome will be to manipulate the collective guilt of the western society, and then offer them salvation through collective suicide. With that in mind, the current policies of the liberal apparatchiks are going to drive up the costs of both gas and electricity (The current respite will be only temporary). Probably the best way of hobbling an economy is to drive up energy prices. Meanwhile the other economies unfettered by these shackles imposed on the US economy will power ahead and surpass the US.
This would tie in nicely to the thesis that the successors to a totalitarian ideology are using different strategies to achieve the same goal.
Guy
Both WUWT and CA have achieved enormous wins over RealClimate, that’s what’s important. Pharyngula is less of a science blog than any of those listed.
@lucia (16:52:56) :
When someone becomes smug and arrogant about their belief system they give all of their fellow believers bad press, regardless of what that system is based on.
Benjamin, your (alarmist) side is quantitatively challenged (as usual). Google “breeder reactor”. Google “fusion energy”.
@Ric Werme (17:13:29) :
You wrote in part:
“Ultimately, I have no idea if winning this popularity contest means anything, but congratulations on your apparent victory.”
Actually, I think the Awards sponsors give each of the winners an all-expenses-paid trip to anywhere, ANYWHERE they want to go… on the internet ;o)
@Anthony
Two thumbs up!
you atheists crack me up (no, i’m not making fun of you). i like your sense of humor and willingness to engage in witty, meaningful discussion 🙂
Hey, speaking as a witty atheist, maybe if you were to actually use some Capitals, then, just maybe, I might consider the possibility that you are in fact a SuperNaturalist yourself. That’s your first problem.
@BarryW (18:44:23) :
“Both WUWT and CA have achieved enormous wins over RealClimate, that’s what’s important. Pharyngula is less of a science blog than any of those listed.”
Agreed. Pharyngula is irrelevant in my opinion due to arrogance and lack of discipline, and RC also shares the same fate, although they are more subtle.
The beauty of it is that without the internet, none of this groundswell of resistance to junk science could have developed.
“I too am an atheist. I think Pharyngula gives people a bad impression of atheists”
Wow, what hope do you have for your future? I will pray for you. Please don’t get mad.
OT: The Law of Unintended Consequences
BANGKOK, Thailand – It seemed like a good idea at the time: Remove all the feral cats from a famous Australian island to save the native seabirds.
But the decision to eradicate the felines from Macquarie island allowed the rabbit population to explode and, in turn, destroy much of its fragile vegetation that birds depend on for cover, researchers said Tuesday…
I’ve not read all the comment but the HATE coming at me is palpable!
I’ve NEVER seen it here before, and hope I never do again!
It is a tribute to WUWT that the moderators did not censor this hate.
All the best to everyone. (Even the haters.)
DaveE.
J. Peden (18:54:50) :
don’t assume because i don’t use capital letters i don’t know grammar or punctuation rules. 🙂
in blog entries, email and other informal settings, i for some reason prefer lower case as i think it detracts less from the meaning of one’s comments and somehow seems less authoritarian.
I can use appropriate capitalization, if necessary. 🙂
Just wondering if RealClimate will take any lessons away from this… Nahhhhh.