While the latest IPCC working group III summary report has its share of gloom and doom and ridiculous edicts, it does have one redeeming quality as Josh points out.
While the latest IPCC working group III summary report has its share of gloom and doom and ridiculous edicts, it does have one redeeming quality as Josh points out.
Gail Combs,
Wow..can anyone verify this…yesterday when I checked the IPCC WGIII Report link in the main post, it read that Nuclear Energy was to ‘triple to quadruple by 2050’…today when I checked…there is NO mention of Nuclear Power expansion at all.
It appears that the Left has swung into action and someone in the IPCC has removed the mention of it from the report. If this is so, Anthony should update this post to reflect the new reality!
@ur momisugly Perry on April 15, 2014 at 2:21 am
you wrote “Roger Sowell,
You, being a lawyer, surprised me by smearing France with innuendo. In part 11, you assert that French subsidized prices were Investigated for anti-trust by the EU.”
No, there is no innuendo, and no smearing. It is a fact, as shown below. France subsidized its power prices for quite some time. A factual statement is not a smear, at least not in the legal world.
The EU Commission published its findings after investigating the French subsidized electric power pricing, and wrote:
“. It found that these regulated tariffs were financed at least in part through state resources. It also concluded that, as far as the ‘yellow’ and ‘green’ options were concerned, the tariffs conferred a selective benefit on certain non-household consumers and that they affected trade between Member States.” (Part 2, paragraph 1)
source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:164:0009:0019:EN:PDF
This is the sort of factual backup for all of my statements, all the pro-nuclear comments on this thread to the contrary.
@ur momisugly LamontT on April 15, 2014 at 4:35 am
“Interesting Roger apparently you don’t have an actual counter to my argument. Instead you waved your hands and provided an answer to one I didn’t make. So you concede your view on nuclear power is incorrect I take it.”
Your argument is that France has a high percent of nuclear on its grid, and it exports power. You say those as if they are good things. I refuted that quite easily, in case you missed it:
My article Eleven concludes with France “subsidized its power prices, reluctantly privatized a portion of the electric industry, developed nuclear technology that it desperately subsidizes to sell to other countries, exports low-balled subsidized power to neighboring countries in an attempt to maintain high nuclear plant operating rates, and recently was the object of an investigation for anti-trust by the EU related to power prices.” I should add that the anti-trust investigation concluded that prices were artificially low (set by the government) and mandated an increase in prices over a short interval of years.
My views are exactly correct, supported by the facts. Your view may vary.
Roger Sowell;
My views are exactly correct, supported by the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s the problem Roger. You use selective facts, completely out of context, and construct series of straw man arguments that have nothing to do with actual issues, then draw conclusions from them that equally have nothing to do with the matters being discussed.
That said, I do believe you are sincere. You’e managed to fool a single person. Yourself.
Roger Sowell Writes:
My article Eleven concludes with France “subsidized its power prices, reluctantly privatized a portion of the electric industry, developed nuclear technology that it desperately subsidizes to sell to other countries, exports low-balled subsidized power to neighboring countries in an attempt to maintain high nuclear plant operating rates, and recently was the object of an investigation for anti-trust by the EU related to power prices.”
++++++++
That all sounds benign compared to your beloved Wind Turbines… where the tax payers gets stuck with the tab for these ill producing, energy-price raising tax evading boondoggles. Really if this is a reason to hate nuclear, then you should loathe wind turbines.
Ben D –
it is still there:
At the global level, scenarios reaching 450 ppm CO2eq are also characterized by more rapid improvements of energy efficiency, a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero‐ and low‐carbon energy supply from renewables, nuclear energy and fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), or bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) by the year 2050 (Figure SPM.4, lower panel).
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf
pat says: April 15, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Ben D –
it is still there
——————
By God you’re right….must be all this full moon energy interfering with my synapse firings, I just couldn’t find it. Thanks Pat.
Santa Baby:
re your post at April 15, 2014 at 1:19 pm .
Yes! And well said.
Some numbnuts have managed to fool themselves into thinking AGW is a left/right issue with the result that they have ignored what has actually been happening and continues to happen.
Richard
Gail Combs says:
April 15, 2014 at 5:35 am
I think more ironic than sarcastic but you can chose.
Re ;Royal Dutch Shell ,,,,it is a quoted company on the London Stock exchange and anyone can buy shares.
Ownership would be diverse in the thousands as it is a recognised blue chip stock .
I will see if I can find out more about the shareholders from their annual report.
We should be kind to the Greens. Throwing them under the bus is a very ungreen, unkind thing to do. Maybe we should throw them to the Polar Bears instead? It would solve the Polar Bears problems with finding food and our problems with the Greens. A win win situation.
LamontT says: “I”ll admit if you pile artificial regulations on top of it to make it expensive then you have a point. Oh wait the NRA does doe that wow… perhaps some of those rules designed to make nuclear bad should be tossed out the windows. ”
Darned NRA gun lobby, they have their fingers in everything! They just…Oh, wait just a moment…
Never mind.
🙂
Seriously, one basic rule of regulatory agencies is that eventually every such agency is “captured” by the industry which they propose to regulate. When that happens the regulations become a method to close out any competition or new entries into the field which may threaten the current big corporate players. There are numerous very practical and safe reactor designs which cannot be brought to market.
“NRA regulations say that you must have a three water pump redundant system for cooling.”
“But you do not understand! Our design uses passive cooling. We do not use any pumps at all for cooling. That is what makes it safe! That is what makes it cheaper and practical!”
“Too bad. No pumps, no license. Go tell your lawyers…”
Aah, Roger, you and your facts. Always so diverting.
While you’re in a conversational mood, can I please have your response to the evidence I asked for in a previous thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/31/a-conversation-with-dr-james-hansen-on-nuclear-power/
You may recall that Tsk Tsk and I asked you (over two weeks ago) to provide evidence supporting your implication that French nuclear power is “fully subsidized by the government”. You may be correct, but you’ve yet to provide any evidence. I’m still waiting (As is Tsk Tsk, I suppose).
For clarity’s sake you’ll need to provide evidence to support your assertion in toto. That is, that French nuclear energy is “FULLY subsidised by the government” (my emphasis). Me, I’d love the idea of a big fat zero on my energy bill …
Over to you, Mr Sowell.
Jim s says:
April 15, 2014 at 9:20 am
“1) This is true? And if so 2) Are there any (cost effective) designs that mitigate the cooling problem. ”
————–
Me thinks that one (1) large diesel generator would mitigate any cooling problem.
Roger Sowell says:
April 15, 2014 at 5:03 pm
“@ur momisugly Perry on April 15, 2014 at 2:21 am
you wrote “Roger Sowell,
You, being a lawyer, surprised me by ….. ”
————
I am never surprised but am always dubious of the “intent” of Lawyers who write commentary for publication. Especially commentary that involves highly controversial subjects of a scientific nature that are likely to be arbitrated in front of Jurors in a Court of Law.
Samuel C Cogar says:
April 16, 2014 at 7:22 am
Me thinks that one (1) large diesel generator would mitigate any cooling problem.
—————-
That is what the Japanese thought too. Until the generators ran out of fuel 3 days after the tsunami. I like nuclear power but that is needed is a design that can passively shutdown and passively avoid a meltdown.
There are a few designs being looked at for Generation IV reactors that seem promising. Let’s hope nothing bad happens between now and the replacement of existing NP with Gen IV plants.
@ur momisugly Samuel C Cogar,
Lawyers have been writing “Commentary for publication” for centuries, e.g. Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1765.
By your standards, there would be no blogs, law journals or law reviews for forensics, environmental, medical, space, technology, or any other scientific legal topic. The ABA has a section on Science and Technology of which I am a member. S&T actually has several publications, in paper and electronic media.
Roger Sowell says:
April 16, 2014 at 8:48 am
@ur momisugly Samuel C Cogar,
Lawyers have been writing “Commentary for publication” for centuries, e.g. Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1765.
By your standards, there would be no blogs, law journals or law reviews for forensics, environmental, medical, space, technology, or any other scientific legal topic. The ABA has a section on Science and Technology of which I am a member. S&T actually has several publications, in paper and electronic media.
+++++++++++
Hear Hear – ode to Janice:
Here’s the problem, Roger, with your contribution to subjects involved scientific, political or any other matters. When lawyers argue a case, one wins and the other loses. Your mandate is to win and get your award. It has little to do with what’s right/wrong, good/bad, correct/incorrect. That’s the position you are in. Lawyers do not seek truth (a jury does that). You have many holes in your case, and your mandate causes you to be partial to logic, fact or anything that gets in the way of your charter.
You can not be reasoned with, for you only seek outcome, not truth.
@ur momisugly Mario Lento,
There are no “holes in (my) case”, as you put it. Facts are facts. I recite the facts about nuclear power, and you and your ilk cannot stand the spotlight.
Nice try, though.
You are obviously not familiar with how attorneys shape public policy. We research facts, write and publish articles, and criticize each other’s work.
Exposing the false dogma of nuclear advocates is a worthy cause.
Hi, Mario!
Oh, boy, you should not have mentioned my name! I am Mr. Sowell’s nemesis. Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaa! I DO believe that Sowell is sincere and I still have some compassion for him, nevertheless. People with mental delusions simply CAN — not be made to see reality. And that statement will not make that happen, either. I only say it to let people here know where I am coming from with regard to Sowell. It is a known fact that dementia often imitates wickedness, especially in the deceit category. Yes, I am speaking rather harshly about someone who mostly just needs our sympathy, however, the GROSS mis-information he so confidently pumps out on WUWT, month after month, about nuclear power (and, incident to that, wind power) MUST BE REFUTED to prevent his deceiving the ignorant.
I agree with your HIGHLY informed, expert opinion, Mario:
NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE AND RELIABLE AND, WITHOUT HUGE REGULATORY BARRIERS TO ENTRY, COULD MAKE ENERGY FOR MANY AMERICANS MORE AFFORDABLE. Nuclear is a truly “green” technology. The person above frightened about “Fukushima-type events” is simply misinformed. See: “There Was No Fukushima Nuclear Disaster” here: http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
Thanks for a little nod, there. If there is an ode for me somewhere in your heart, that is a lovely thing to contemplate.
Glad you took the time to weigh in on a thread where your nuclear engineering expertise was especially valuable.
Yours,
Janice
**********************************************
The following is written because, in spite of all the dishonest attorneys out there, MOST of them are decent, hardworking, HONEST, people who, believe it or not, became lawyers because: they wanted to help people — and I want to defend them!
Re: Mr. Sowell as an attorney:
1. He is operating from “reduced capacity” in my opinion, thus, he would be, in the eye of the law, “excused” (i.e., if he were to be convicted of, say, (just for grins) fraud in deceiving the public into buying shares in a bogus windfarm scheme, IF, I say, IF, (smile), he would be held guilty, but, excused from the punishment a full-capacity person would be given — usually, that means doing time in a mental hospital instead of regular prison).
2. Looking at his behavior per se, that is, for the moment setting aside the reduced capacity defense his attorney would use if he were sued or prosecuted, it is a disgrace to the legal profession. While, yes, attorneys are to be zealous advocates for their client and to present the FACTS in the best light possible from their client’s perspective, there is still a duty of candor to the tribunal which Sowell swore to uphold in his Oath of Attorney, many years ago… . When an attorney cannot in good conscience (before God who sees and knows the truth) continue to represent his or her client because they are faced with the dilemma of: a. essentially lying to the judge or b. breaching the duty to keep client confidences (or some other duty to their client), it is usually that attorney’s duty to withdraw from representation.
Sowell here, yes I realize he can’t help it but the fact of his behavior remains, is using all the techniques of a l1ar and or a weak debater:
— mischaracterization — misrepresentation of the other’s argument (a.k.a. “strawman”) — reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of his statements (if not intentional l1es) — rude and offensive ad hominem and on and on.
IN A COURT OF LAW, this is what the presiding judge would have to say:
Roger Sowell: Bllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhbity blah, and blah, and YOU don’t know! and DEATH! and ….. I KNOW THIS I KNOW IT I KNOW IT I KNOW IT……!!!! I’ve written ARTICLES!!!!! woeijowaijg ojoao;w38uro283owejljfljfaslfja laslkdsljls……
Judge: “Mr. Sowell………. Mr. Sowell!…. {POUND GAVEL} MIS-TER SOWELL! {Sowell finally stops talking} That — is — enough. This is not Roger Sowell’s Brother Love Travelling Anti-Nuclear Show. This is a court of law. The goal of this proceeding is: TRUTH. You have wandered far, far away from the mission of this proceeding — Fact-finding — and deep into the swamp-fogged hinterlands of obfuscation and fallacy. You have strayed like a mule after clover FAR from any CONCEIVABLE definition of “zealous advocacy.” You have called NO genuinely “expert” witnesses. You have persisted in repeatedly mischaracterizing the expert testimony for the other side. You have assumed facts not in evidence. You have violated the hearsay rule in ten different directions. You have issued CONCLUSION AFTER CONCLUSION. Your entire direct and cross examinations have been one long OPENING STATEMENT. I am going to have to get myself a new gavel, I have had to use it so many times this week. You have asserted nothing but unsupported generalizations showing a COMPLETE DISDAIN FOR THE INTELLIGENCE OF THIS COURT. You are, in short: a mere fanatic. Your unprofessional conduct is a disgrace to the legal profession. You are the epitome of everything that gives the public cause to despise its lawyers. You would have inspired Shakespeare.
You completely disregarded everything I told you in chambers. I am done warning you. I am sorry to have to do this; it is only the second time in my many years as a judge that I have had to, but I am sanctioning you and assessing terms … . This court will be in recess until 1:30 pm. {gavel pound} Counsel, I want to see both of you in my chambers.”
Bailiff: All rise…
— I would not disparage another member of the legal profession except for his having OPENED THE DOOR by his shamefully unprofessional conduct. I would be remiss in my duty to uphold the integrity of the legal profession if I remained silent.
Sincerely as all get-out,
Janice Moore
P.S. And, yes, Mr. Sowell, I will still pray for you. Even though you spit on me.
@Mac the Knife, April 14, 2014 at 8:23 pm
http://temperaturetrends.org/images/state_trends_2013/WI.state.v1.ANNUAL.tavg.png
Dude, you need to sharpen your blade.
Roger? Hello? Is this thing on?
You keep responding to other people, including comments that are posted after mine (April 16, 2014 at 7:21 am, to help you find it again), so I’m guessing you’ve seen it.
You might recall that I was simply asking you to provide evidence for to back up your words – that French nuclear energy is “FULLY subsidised by the government” (my emphasis). I hear tell that you’re a lawyer, and that lawyers are supposed to be wordsmiths; I’m sure you chose your words with care, and have the documentation to back them up
I think that it’s a fair and reasonable question, civilly asked. I’ve been asking it for two weeks now and, if I may be blunt, I think it deserves the courtesy of a response.
Please Mr Sowell, I’m happy to acknowledge that you might be quite correct – I just can’t find the evidence for what you said, and I’m hoping you can point me in the right direction.
Once again, Mr Sowell – over to you.
Roger Sowell says:
April 16, 2014 at 8:48 am
“Lawyers have been writing “Commentary for publication” for centuries, e.g. Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1765. ”
—————–
Roger, iffen you want to write a book, blog, law review or commentary on Law practices in 1765, 1865 or 1965 …… then be my guest and do whatever turns your crank.
But when Lawyers submit Op-Ed commentaries and/or pseudo-scientific opinions for publishing in Newspapers, etc., that read like an “infomercial” of half-truths, junk science, tripe and/or piffle …… then I have to assume its sole intent was to bias the thoughts and beliefs of any potential/prospective members of a future “jury pool”.
And most Newspaper Editors, etc., are guilty of the same dastardly acts …. and it is “effective” simply because no one can refute their “commentary” until long, long “after-the-fact”.