Guest essay by Ed Hoskins | Data for the USA, Germany and the UK since the year 2000.
These notes quantify the progress and achievement of the massive movement to install renewable energy solutions for electricity generation in Western Nations. They only concern the two most significant new renewable energy sources ie. Solar and Wind-power. They progressively gauge and quantify the nominal rated energy output for these sources and their capacity factors for the three major Western investors in renewable electricity generation, the USA, Germany and in fact to a lesser extent the UK.
The following data sources were reviewed.
United States of America: data available 2000 – 2012
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60197.pdf
Germany: data available from 1990 to 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
United Kingdom: data available 2008 – 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
These data provide installed “nameplate” capacity measured in Megawatts (MW) and energy output measured across the year in total Gigawatt hours, (GWh). Thus they do not provide directly comparable values as Megawatt nameplate capacity and the consequential actual energy outputs achieved. For this exercise the annual Gigawatt hours values were revised back to equivalent Megawatts for comparative purposes, accounting for the 8,760 hours in the year. This measure eliminates the effect of intermittency and non-dispatchability characterising renewable Energy power sources. It does make direct comparisons possible.
For comparative purposes a normal fossil fuelled power station is rated with a nameplate capacity of about 1000 Megawatts or 1 Gigawatt. Overall the cumulative outcomes show the scale of the differential between nations and the discrepancy between installed nameplate capacity and the actual energy output achieved so far as, as follows:
The three graphs below summarise the available comparative data for each country:
In the USA the contribution from wind-power now nominally amounts to about 16 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about 1 1/2 of a normal power station is provided by US solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity only reached 18.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was as much as 21.6%. The solar capacity value has declined significantly. This relatively high capacity figure is because most solar installations are in Southern, desert states, namely California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 26.7% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 24.3%.
The renewable energy investment in the USA nominally now contributes about 3.8% of electricity generation.
The 25 year investment in Germany’s the renewable energy has nominally contributed about the equivalent of about 6 normal power stations, (1 GW) from wind-power. Solar power nominally contributes about 3 more normal power stations. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 10.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 7.6%.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the relatively low output capacity factor of 19.1% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 17.0%.
The vast renewable investment in Germany now contributes to some 15.8% of nominal electricicity generation.
In the UK the nominal contribution from wind-power is now equivalent to about 3 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about ¼ of a normal power station is provided by solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 6.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was rather higher at 7.6%.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 28.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it only amounted to 22.5%.
The renewable investment in the UK nominally now amounts to 7.9% of electrical generation.
However there is a major problem with these renewable energy sources. Their electrical output is not dispatchable. Their output is entirely unable respond to electricity demand as and when needed. Energy is contributed to the grid in a haphazard manner dependent on the weather, and certainly not necessarily when it is required.
For example solar power inevitably varies according to the time of day, the state of the weather and also of course radically with the seasons. Essentially solar power might only work effectively in Southern latitudes and it certainly does not do well in Northern Europe. In Germany the massive commitment to solar energy might well provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours on some fine summer days either side of noon, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar energy input is necessarily nil.
See: http://www.ukpowergeneration.info
Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as for example in a week in July this year shown above. Similarly an established high pressure zone with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, that is when electricity demand is likely to be at its highest.
Conversely on occasions renewable energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped unproductively. There is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used here in relation to the measured outputs from renewable energy sources.
Overall the renewable energy output from these three major nations that have committed to massive investments in Renewable Energy amounts to a nominal ~31Gigawatts out of a total installed generating capacity of ~570Gigawatts or only ~5.5%.
But even that amount of energy production is not really as useful as one would wish, because of its intermittency and non-dispatchability.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As always, godostoyke falls back on his usual Appeal to Authority fallacy. It is a fallacy because Planet Earth — the only true authority — is busy debunking the catastrophic AGW nonsense that has colonized godostoyke’s brain. He can’t help it, he is controlled by that failed scare. He is incapable of processing the information that global warming has stopped. It stopped many years ago, as a matter of fact, thus debunking the endless alarmist predictions of runaway global warming: they were flat WRONG. All of them. But they lack the integrity to admit it.
godostoyke also uses his usual psychological projection when he quotes Sinclair’s axiom:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
The salaries of just about every professional climate alarmist depends on the government in one way or another. The fact that many climatologists switch 180º immediately upon their retirement proves that they only parroted AGW when it paid them to do so. RA Cook makes an excellent argument, which gogostoyke cannot refute.
“Renewable energy” is a total waste of taxpayer money. There is no energy nearly as inexpensive or as efficient as fossil fuels. The stupid solar panels, and the über-STUPID windmills would never even exist, were it not for immense government subsidies that prop up those scams. There is no energy cheaper than coal. All of the small subsidies enjoyed by the coal industry could be completely eliminated, and coal would still out-compete all solar and wind power schemes. Coal produces energy 24/7/365, and it produces usable CO2 that measurably benefits the biosphere, while stupid windmills depend on the wind; and the wind must be of the right velocity. Solar, of course, is only good if the sun shines, in the daytime, and when there are no clouds. Stupid, stupid, stupid. ‘Renewable energy’ is stupid cubed.
In fact, the entire ‘global warming’ debate is argued by intelligent scientific skeptics on the one hand, and ultra-stupid religious acolytes on the alarmist side; acolytes who cite the buffoon Algore, as godostoyke does here. When the true facts are produced, no one in their right mind would opt for ‘renewable’ energy. Because the average person is not nearly as stupid as the mindless promoters of wind power.
The only ones who benefit from wind and solar are big corporations, who just love Algore lemmings like godostoyke. For nothing at all, he promotes Big Business like GE; the ones who manufacture the bird-shredders. GE doesn’t have to pay a dime for clueless nincompoops to sing its praises. How is that for American capitalism? And then there is the FSB-controlled Greenpeace. But don’t get me started…
godostoyke
You proclaim that you cannot read and you lack ability to think when at September 9, 2014 at 4:25 pm you write saying in total
It is you that “doesn’t make any sense”.
I could also have written ‘nobody doubts that bricks are baked earth, … But there is no evidence for the Mohave desert being man-made’,
and your reply would have been
‘That doesn’t make any sense, as humans make lots of bricks’.
dbstealey has repeatedly attempted to tell you what is – and what is not – evidence; for example, here where he wrote saying to you.
Richard
PS dbstealey was wrong when he reported that I was “a” Senior Material Scientist at the Coal Research Establishment (CRE): I am very proud to proclaim that that I was THE Senior Material Scientist at CRE. And I am trying to offer you some of my knowledge and experience because you sorely need it.
godostoyke
You have repeatedly (and wrongly) claimed that peer reviewed papers published in technical journals are “evidence”.
I cited, linked-to and quoted the entire Abstract of one of several papers which reports
You have replied saying
Scientists provide evidence – not “proof” – because they attempt to falsify.
Pseudoscientists attempt to provide “proof” because they attempt to justify.
You wrongly assert that peer reviewed papers are “evidence” when it suits your fallacious assertions. You admit that the paper I cited is – as all published papers are – opinion based on stated evidence.
So, we can now add ‘inconsistency’ to your growing list of faults (i.e. hubris, ignorance, stupidity, etc.).
Richard
@dbstealey, “The despicable godostoyke”, @richardscourtney “your growing list of faults (i.e. hubris, ignorance, stupidity, etc.)”
I am saddened by the fact that neither of you seems to be able to maintain a courteous debate.
@dbstealey My peer-reviewed publications are (available in any major scientific library):
Stoyke, Godo, and Currah, R.S. 1993. Resynthesis in pure culture of a common subalpine fungus-root association using Phialocephala fortinii and Menziesia ferruginea (Ericaceae). Arct. & Alp. Res. 25: 189-193.
Stoyke, Godo, Egger, K., and Currah, R.S. 1992. Characterization of sterile endophytic fungi from the mycorrhizae of subalpine plants. Can. J. Bot. 70: 2009-2016.
Stoyke, Godo, and Currah, R.S. 1991. Endophytic fungi from the mycorrhizae of alpine ericoid plants. Can. J. Bot. 69: 347-352.
@dbstealey “Do you even have a degree? Have you ever published, even once?” (see above also)
Godo Stoyke, B.Sc., M.Sc., LEED® A.P., Ph. D. candidate
Godo Stoyke is a best-selling author and award-winning environmental researcher and presenter with a Master of Science degree from the University of Alberta. Godo is a lead designer for zero carbon buildings and community infrastructure, integrated eco-industrial design, zero carbon retrofit recommendations, and entity-based greenhouse gas management strategies. He is president of Carbon Busters (www.carbonbusters.org), a sustainability consultancy focusing on deep green sustainable integrated community planning, energy efficiency, zero carbon design, sustainability strategy, and environmental education. His company has been assisting municipalities, school boards and commercial enterprises in Canada, the US and Europe to reduce their carbon and ecological footprints since 1993, specializing in cost-effective solutions. Under Godo’s leadership, Carbon Busters has received Gold Champion level reporting status for all its Greenhouse Gas Action Plans submitted to the Canadian Standards Association.
Through its self-funding energy program alone, Carbon Busters has saved its clients over 78 million kilograms of CO2e and over $26.4 million in utility bills. Godo has lived in an off-grid solar powered home near Edmonton, Alberta for 21 years and is currently designing a zero carbon community in Leduc County, featuring 260 zero carbon homes and businesses. He has been a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited Professional registered with the US Green Building Council since 2004. Godo Stoyke, and his collaborators Dr. Randy Currah and Dr. Keith Egger, were among the first to apply genetic fingerprinting techniques to the identification of sterile endophytes of subalpine ericoid mycorrhizal plants using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) techniques. Godo has appeared on over 700 radio and television shows, including CBC, CTV, CP24, BNN, Access TV, CKUA, US Radio Network and Global TV, sharing his expertise in the sustainability field. Godo’s second book The Carbon Buster’s Home Energy Handbook was selected as a ”Book that makes a difference” by New Zealand’s Sustainable Future in April of 2007. His third book, The Carbon Charter describes the world’s most innovative municipal and state initiatives towards a zero carbon society (New Society Publishers, August 2009). Godo was selected as one of 50 Canadians making a difference by Green Living Magazine in 2008. Carbon Busters was part of an international design team (Bjarke Ingels Group big.dk and the Rocky Mountain Institute, rmi.org) that was selected by the governments of Bavaria and Munich for a 2010 competition to create a passivhaus/energy-plus Olympic Village for the proposed 2018 Olympic Winter Games in Munich. Godo is president and founding director of the 2011 non-profit corporation C Returns ({see-re-turns} “Cash, Carbon and Community”; http://www.creturns.com), whose mission is to green every home and community building in Alberta. C Returns was officially launched in April of 2012. He is currently working on a Ph.D. focusing on optimizing smart grid-integrated cold climate zero carbon building design for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic cost at the Faculty of Environmental Design and the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy at the University of Calgary.
Web sites:
▪ http://www.carbonbusters.org/
▪ http://www.creturns.com/
▪ http://www.iseee.ca/for-students/eess-graduate-students/
▪ http://evds.ucalgary.ca/profiles/godo-stoyke
▪ https://www.amazon.com/author/godostoyke
▪ http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=19887275&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
▪ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5A-4zxIAAAAJ&hl=en
▪ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Godo_Stoyke/?ev=hdr_xprf
▪ http://www.usgbc.org/people/godo-stoyke/0000018788
▪ http://www.twitter.com/GodoStoyke
▪ http://www.godostoyke.wordpress.com
godostoyke
You write
Say what!?
This is after you wrote
which engendered Tom replying
to which you answered
Please note that the National Coal Board was closed in 1995 and it is now 2004.
So, you quoted a smear blog about me and when queried on that quote you made a smear of me that is not only untrue but is also impossible. And you have followed that with you claiming I seem unable “to maintain a courteous debate” when I mention your growing list of faults (i.e. hubris, ignorance, stupidity, etc.).
You nasty little troll, you ended “courteous debate” when you made an untrue and impossible smear of me.
Richard
Mr Richard Courtney.
..
I see your problem.
..
“and it is now 2004.”
..
Living in the past.
beckleybud@gmail.com
No. The problem is egregious blog trolls in the present.
There were few blogs in 1995.
Richard
@ur momisugly “Please note that the National Coal Board was closed in 1995 and it is now 2004.”
2014?
Also, not quite sure how it is a smear to mention that you worked for the coal board, or, as you state, the “Coal Research Establishment”? And that one’s employment may engender bias?
godostoyke
As I said, I am very proud of my work at CRE.
You implied that I am being employed by CRE to tell the truth about so-called ‘climate science’. I do not obtain and I have never obtained payment for any of my activities pertaining to climate. I have obtained expenses for travel and accommodation to attend Conferences, Debates, Briefing at US Congress, etc.. None of these expenses have been from any energy industry.
Your behaviour is poisoning this thread,. Return to your fungi: many are supposed to be poisonous. I suppose you study them under your bridge.
Richard
godostoyke
I notice that you have still not addressed my question to you, so I repeat it.
Are you employed to be a troll?
I recognise that with your expertise in fungi you are qualified to give people the mushroom treatment; i.e. keep them in the dark and feed them sh*t.
Richard
@richardscourtney “Are you employed to be a troll?”
1. I am not sure you understand the definition of a troll. It is someone who purposefully posts comments that are designed to inflame and not to serve discussion. My comments have been to elucidate the subjects under discussion (first, renewable energy, and later in response to comments on climate change). The fact that I have attempted to back up most of my statements with evidence already pretty much eliminates me from the troll category.
2. No, I am not employed to be a troll, because a) I am not a troll and b) if you mean am I being paid to post here: I am not, though that would be nice
@godostoyke:
You can submit an article to Anthony for publication. That I would like to see, because I have no doubt you would be ripped to shreds by the rational readers here. They know more basic science than you will ever learn.
But hey, give it a try.
@richardscourtney “You implied that I am being employed by CRE to tell the truth about so-called ‘climate science’.
I implied that people who work for the fossil fuel industry, or research for the fossil fuel industry, often tend to exhibit an anti-AGW bias. I stand by that implication. I did not claim that you are being paid by the fossil fuel industry to mislead people about climate science, because I didn’t know if you are. (Though a good portion of the few scientists publicly denouncing AGW are, see e.g. Oreskes and Conway: “Merchants of Doubt”, or Hoggan and Littlemore: “Climate Cover-Up”.)
“I have obtained expenses for travel and accommodation to attend Conferences, Debates, Briefing at US Congress, etc.. None of these expenses have been from any energy industry.”
However, SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney) lists you as being at a briefing at the Cooler Heads Coalition, whose members include organizations who have received lots of funding from fossil-fuel companies (and are spreading misinformation about climate change, e.g. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy). It seems then that at least your travel expenses were funded at least partly by fossil fuel money through the member organizations.
Referring to Source Watch is as lacking in credibility as quoting Media Matters. Neither one is anything but stupid propaganda that reflects badly on anyone citing them.
Enough with your ad-hom comments. You claim you understand science, but you can’t even understand the meaning of scientific evidence. Since you don’t know basic science, I guess your ad hominem posts are all you’ve got. Here at the internet’s Best Science site, that’s just not good enough.
@dbstealey: “You are nothing, so you try to drag others down to your pathetic level.”
That’s just sad, db stealey.
So, are you going to write an article for WUWT?
godostoyke:
Are you going to step up to the plate and write an article? You take constant pot shots at skeptics, but after claiming you’re an author of “best sellers”, you are afraid to write anything but spambot comments.
Think you have a good argument? Think you know even basic science?
Then prove it. Write an article.
@dbstealey “write an article”
Are you authorized to offer authors the opportunity to write on “wattsupwiththat.com”?
Typical libnut troll. Lie, Deflect and change the subject.
Write an Article!
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:59:25 +0000 To: tmmacey@live.com
stoyke says:
“Are you authorized to offer…”
You can’t be that dense… can you? Look on the masthead:
Submit story
There you go.
“you can’t be that dense… can you?” This was a rhetorical question, right?
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:11:03 +0000 To: tmmacey@live.com
godostoyke
You have not withdrawn your untrue smear and have attempted to expand on it by claiming I indirectly obtain or have indirectly obtained expenses from energy industries. To help you in your behaviour, I point out that I buy gas to heat my home so I am indebted to the gas industry, and I used to be a smoker so my purchases of cigarettes assisted the tobacco industry.
As example of your ludicrous behaviour, I cite your refusal to justify your ridiculous assertion that published papers you like are “evidence” but published papers refuting your daft assertions are not “evidence”.
In light of both your behaviour and your falsehoods, I doubt your claim that you are not an employed troll. And I suggest that instead of that employment you supplement your student income by growing mushrooms as a commercial activity: this would have the benefits of using your studies of fungi and stop you being a drain on society.
Richard
@richardscourtney “As example of your ludicrous behaviour, I cite your refusal to justify your ridiculous assertion that published papers you like are “evidence” but published papers refuting your daft assertions are not “evidence”.
Good you brought this up. I am glad that you increased the quality of this debate by using peer-reviewed science. Please note that peer-reviewed papers usually are the MINIMUM point of entry for scientific debate. The next hurdle is verification by other researchers, or presentation of counter-evidence. In the case of evidence for human-induced climate change this consists of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, with very few providing evidence to the contrary, and of those few most are by non-climate scientists publishing in journals that do not regularly publish on climate science.
godostoyke
Good evasion. I take it as being an admission that you are an employed troll.
And no, you are plain wrong when you make the ignorant and laughable assertion
Scientific debate initiates in and between teams when scientific work is in conduct.
When completed, most and best science is not published in the public domain because it has commercial, industrial, national, security and/or military confidentiality. Indeed, that is why there are entire industries devoted to espionage.
But I suppose a student learning to study fungi would only learn about any of this if he were to get involved in biological warfare research, and one can only hope that someone with your obvious lack of competence will ever be allowed to work with dangerous organisms needing to be contained.
Richard
@richardscourtney “most and best science is not published in the public domain because it has commercial, industrial, national, security and/or military confidentiality.”
Richard, obviously we are talking about natural sciences research published openly in scientific journals (including climate science). We cannot discuss the veracity of scientific research that neither you nor I have seen because it is done in secret. Not quite sure how your comment is relevant to our climate science discussion?
@richardscourtney “You have not withdrawn your untrue smear and have attempted to expand on it by claiming I indirectly obtain or have indirectly obtained expenses from energy industries.”
“untrue smear” I mentioned that based on sourcewatch.org you did research for the coal industry. You confirmed this yourself in your comment above, so no problem here. I stated that those associated with the fossil-fuel industry may exhibit bias against evidence for AGW. Hardly a smear, and not nearly as bad as db stealey calling respected climate scientist Michael Mann a “charlatan” above, possibly an actionable item not backed up by evidence. So I am not sure what “smear” you are referring to or what I am supposed to retract? The fact that you did research for the coal industry?
Regarding expenses for your presentations: Did you or did you not present at the “Cooler Heads Coalition” briefing, or the 1995 Leipzig conference organized by the “European Academy for Environmental Affairs” and the “Science and Environment Policy Project” as stated on the sourcewatch.org page?
stoyke says:
“Did you or did you not…”
Who are you, Sen. Joseph McCarthy?
And yes, I called Mann a charlatan, just like lots of others have. That is my opinion based on lies he has told, and I stand by it. What, you are now the censor of opinions? That fits the mindset of a totalitarian statist, doesn’t it?
BTW: where’s that article? You’re not chickening out, are you?
@dbstealey “And yes, I called Mann a charlatan …. What, you are now the censor of opinions?”
Just clarifying that it is ok for you to insult and malign respected research scientists, but I get accused of “smearing” Richard for pointing out that he did research for the coal industry (which he confirmed). Got it.
@dbstealey “write an article”
You have not answered my question:
“Are you authorized to offer authors the opportunity to write on “wattsupwiththat.com”?”
“malign respected research scientists,” Do you mean respected scientists that lie about receiving a Nobel Prize, as mr. mann has done???
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:37:48 +0000 To: tmmacey@live.com
Tom beat me to it: Michael Mann is not a “respected” anything. IMHO he is a repeat offender in the honesty department. Haven’t you read the recent articles and comments about Mann? Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
And of course I am authorized to offer authors, or anyone else the opportunity to submit an article here! I have full authority to offer anyone that opportunity. Yes, me. I have the authority to make that offer.
In fact, anyone is ‘authorized’ to ‘offer’ the opportunity to submit an article: I simply point them to the tab where they can click to submit it. You’re not the first commenter I’ve suggested writing an article. When a runaway global warming believer pretends to understand the science discussed here, I often tell them they should write an article. But so far, not one of them has taken me up on my suggestion. They usually tuck tail and run for the hills.
[However, I have no more authority than anyone else to approve any articles that are submitted. As far as I know, Anthony Watts is the go-to person for that.]
But give it a try. You claim to be an author, so writing an article should be a piece of cake. Anthony writes about 4 – 6 articles every day; you can write one. So have at it.
[And I’m not your answering service. You’ve used up your question quota, and then some. Save any more questions until I see that article.]
@dbstealey “stoyke says: “Are you authorized to offer…”
@dbstealey “[However, I have no more authority than anyone else to approve any articles that are submitted. As far as I know, Anthony Watts is the go-to person for that.]”
That’s what I was getting at. You are not the one approving publication, so I have at least a 90% chance of not getting published if I were to go to the effort … (http://wattsupwiththat.com/submit-a-story/). Not a strong incentive, but I’ll consider it.
Excuses.
godostoyke
Clearly, telling the truth causes you pain because you consistently try to avoid it.
Your reply to Tom was a smear and you repeated it later when you pretended that I have or do obtain payments from energy industries for my activities to promote high standards in science including climate research. You have expanded it, and again repeated it, by suggesting that I should not provide papers to conferences conducted by organisations that – according to your smear blog – have obtained funds from fossil fuel industries.
Clearly, nothing from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia Uni. is acceptable to you because they were founded using oil money and still obtain funding from oil companies. I suppose you reject my emails leaked from CRU as part of Climategate for this reason.
And your point about natural sciences is plain daft. You claimed that
That is nonsense!
I refuted it saying
and I proved that your assertion is wrong by stating
According to you there is no scientific debate about most science because most science is not published in the public domain!
Your reply is to say that we are not talking about most research. Bollocks! You raised the subject of “the MINIMUM point of entry for scientific debate” and I showed that your assertion is not true in any way shape or form.
In short, everything you write is divorced from reality. And it would be good to know who is paying you to present your ridiculous falsehoods.
Richard
@richardscourtney “When completed, most and best science is not published in the public domain because it has commercial, industrial, national, security and/or military confidentiality. Indeed, that is why there are entire industries devoted to espionage.”
I think you are confusing science with engineering here, which is probably what most military and commercial research is. However, even secret research is subject to the same cross-examination by other scientists once it gets published.
godostoyke
No dear, science and engineering are very different. It seems you know nothing of either.
Richard
Ah. I see that godostoyke is compensated to promote cAGW, and his various jobs depend on keeping the eco-con alive. That confirms my assessment that he was exhibiting the widespresd hallmark of the alarmist cult, psycjological projection, when he wrote:
It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
godostoyke’s income depends on demonizing harmless, beneficial CO2. So naturally he has no use for the Scientific Method, the climate Null Hypothesis, Occam’s Razor, or anything else in the physical sciences. He knbows what constitutes scientific evidence, but he claims ignorance. He tucks tail and runs away from real evidence, because if he faced it, his entire eco-nonsense would collapse.
Stoyke is highly compensated for his wild-eyed, ‘sustainable’, anti-human propaganda. People like godostoyke are a major affliction on the West; one of the old Soviets’ many ‘useful idiots’, who deliberately hobbles our civilization in the name of their anti-human ‘green’ eco-religion.
And make no mistake: he is totally religious, more than any Elmer Gantry; more so than even the most radical Islamist, and he wants to inflict his anti-human eco-religion on everyone else. As the late, great Michael Crichton wrote:
Crichton was quite correct. These people are anti-everything that made the West great. They are anti-human. Everyone in the West lives longer on average, and has better medical care, and enjoys a much higher standard of living, and in general has a much better, more productive, and happier life — thanks directly to fossil fuels. Now eco-lunatics want to eliminate fossil fuels, which would reverse all the good that fossil fuels have done.
There is no downside to more CO2; it’s all good. More is better; there has never been any global harm, or global damage, identified as being caused by the rise in harmless CO2 — which has only risen from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half. That small riese is hardly a reason to derail Western civilization. But incredibly, that is exactly what the eco crowd wants to do.
People like G. Stoyke, who are always eco-propagandizing, are deliberately trying to force the rest of society to enter a hell on earth. He is either very naive or he is deliberately promoting policies that kill people. I suspect the latter due to his repeatedly expressed anti-human mindset.
@dbstealey “People like godostoyke are … ‘useful idiots’, …. “his repeatedly expressed anti-human mindset.”
dbstealey and Richard, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the number of your personal insults and the evidence you present. Are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you need to demonize anyone who does not agree with your opinions?
I notice that the “wattsup” site policy () states that “personal attacks, … , name-calling … and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted”. I guess that rule does not apply to those who agree with the basic premises of the site, including dbstealey, richardscourtney and tom?
Plus, dbstealey I noted that you still have not provided a list of Richard’s “peer reviewed” climate science papers (even though I provided a list of my references, as you asked). Why the secrecy? Do you have something to hide? Also, Richard never responded to my questions regarding the conferences he attended, which would easily prove or disprove some of the statements on sourcewatch.org.
I suggest that you stop the personal insults and start with providing evidence, otherwise I think we are done here.
godostoyke
Good grief! How did you get such an exaggerated idea of your own worth?
I may have bothered to insult you if I had thought of an insult suitable for someone as execrable as you. But I fail to understand how it is possible to insult you.
Richard
To date, your claims all are based on your “faith” in the papers printed through the so-called peer-review process.
Who are those few people who reviewed and accepted the so-far-to-date false predictions of today’s global warming empire of political control and dominance? Who are these anonymous readers and writers who have foisted these myths on the world’s innocents that are responsible for killing so many innocents, and deeply harming so many billion more by artificially increasing energy prices and restricting supply?
We are told only the editors know – so are you claiming that these editors – intimidated as we read from the emails of so-called climate scientists who HAVE fired editors for rejecting the non-sensous global warming dictates – are the five who control the world’s energy policies and prices?
RACookPE1978,
He doesn’t mind being part of a group that has no problem relegating poor folks to starvation, does he? I am beginning to suspect that Stoyke [good Soviet name there] truly believes that the end [“sustainability”] justifies the means [forced starvation]. History is filled with people who have the exact same mindset. And they always seem to be the most thin-skinned.
They always try to control others by setting conditions [“I noted that you still have not provided a list…”]. After providing answers several times to his demands, he keeps insisting. After I told him that I was finished doing his homework for him until he posts an article, he keeps insisting. Those days are gone. Article first, then answers.
This is the real world here. Everyone gets their say; it’s not like stoyke’s alarmist blogs, where skeptics are routinely censored. He would censor us if he could. Because censorship is a big tool in the arsenal of climate alarmists. Without it, they always lose the debate.