Mar 172008

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS

At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.

This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.

(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)

 

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

  1. Robin’s recent post, (#846) reminded me of this:

    “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

    Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

    The more that I think about Gore, (and others) statements that “the science is settled” and “the debate is closed” the more idiotic and ridiculous they sound.

    Past Predictions That Were Way Off
    June 25th, 2008 Posted in Funny Stuff

    A good friend of mine sent me a list of predictions, some which are several years old, that are quite off. I’ll say nothing further about but simply allow you to enjoy them as I did.

    “Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
    Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

    “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
    Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

    “I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.” The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

    “But what … is it good for?”Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

    “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
    Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

    “The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.”
    Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873

    “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.”
    Western Union internal memo, 1876.

    “Louis Pastueur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.”
    Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

    “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?”
    David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

    “The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible.” A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.

    “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?”
    H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

    “I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s falling on his face and not Gary Cooper.”
    Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in “Gone With The Wind.”

    “A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make.”
    Response to Debbi Fields’ idea of starting Mrs. Fields’ Cookies.

    “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
    Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

    “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

    “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.”
    Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

    “So we went to Atari and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we’ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.’ And they said, ‘No.’ So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t need you. You haven’t got through college yet.’”
    Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s personal computer.

    “Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
    1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work.

    “You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can’t be done. It’s just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training.”
    Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the “unsolvable” problem by inventing Nautilus.

    “Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy.”
    Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

    “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.”
    Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.

    “This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He’s doomed.”
    Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast.

    “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”
    Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

    “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”
    Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

    “Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances.”
    Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.

  2. Here are the links for my 835 concerning the regular cycle of ice-shelf mechanical failures, like 3) probably started around 1946, with final collapse in WINTER 1986

    1) Larsen http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/science/Larsen/larsen2002.html
    2) Wilkins http://nsidc.org/news/images/20080325_wilkins_figure1.jpg
    3) Filchner http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Filchner/Filchner

  3. Max,

    On your point of “Research efforts into new technologies that move away from oil, gas and coal in that order will occur for economic reasons with or without “mitigation” measures.”

    Yes there is some truth in what you say, and it is possible that economics will be the key driver in that direction. But, on the other hand, it’s equally possible that the big energy companies will focus instead on such technologies as oil from shale, oil from tar sands, even oil from coal. These are very dirty processes, with high CO2 emissions. There is more than enough carbon locked up in coal and oil shale to cook the planet if it is released too quickly.

    That’s where carbon trading comes in. It tips the economic scales in favour of the cleaner energy alternatives.

  4. Peter Martin 849, you wrote in part, which I quote in bold:

    Bob_FJ, I didn’t see too many question marks in the postings you mentioned so I’m not sure exactly what you need answering, but I’d say that you are confusing ‘calving’ with the collapse of complete ice sheets.

    Peter, please stop playing with semantics, and please answer the question. I have explained to you what hinging failures are, and if you still do not understand, you should ask

    To repeat in different words: these mechanical failures can result in the calving of very large icebergs from very large ice shelves such as Filchner in 1986, OR the loss of ENTIRE small ice-shelves, where the primary hinge line can be expected along the shoreline. Such an event is visibly developing with Wilkins. See link 2 (still in spam queue) If you look along the shore-line you can see a gap opening, which is primarily the consequence of the ice-shelf lifting up and down with the tides, and hinging at the shoreline. With bigger ice-shelves reaching further out to sea, a hinge line(s) will probably develop further from shore, as they did with Filchner, which released icebergs much bigger than the whole of Wilkins.

    I’ve mentioned before that the etiquette in debates should not allow you to refuse to comment simply because not every sentence has a ? appended. I notice for instance that you are happy to respond to longer posts than mine that are devoid of any questions marks, when it is a bucket of worms as with the famous BL. However, it is a different story when you are faced with issues contradicting so-called AGW evidence you apply different rules. Let me repeat part of my 835, with bold added:

    …you still have not answered my very simple repeated question in my 794/795/821…
    [then follows additional information to help you understand the issues, concluding with]
    Do you have any thoughts on the above Peter? (links in following post to avoid spam delay)
    Don’t forget my 794/795!

    Is there something you do not understand about that last question and reminder?

  5. Bob_FJ,

    OK , so you have your own interpretation of what is happening in the Antarctic. As I think I said to Peter Taylor with his interpretation of Arctic conditions, Arctic currents etc, it’s all very speculative and unsupported by scientific references.

    Why should I believe you rather than the trained scientists at NSIDC ?

  6. PeterM
    My August 1st, 2008 at 3:19 am (853/4?)^ asked you to also consider my earlier 794/795/821.
    Quite apart from the fact that you have still not answered any of the clearly identified questions, I wish to point out to you that in total, there were several hours of work involved in me trying to explain things to improve your understanding of these simple questions.
    I also point-out that if you actually read my 853/4?^, the very instant that it was posted on line, without delay, at 3:19 blog-time, then at best you had ~15 minutes of your devotion in response, (To: search-read-analyse-compose, etc), and to when your response was actually posted on-line. I find this to be an insulting neglect on your part, but I guess you are driven to evading any answer to these simple questions, because it would be in conflict with your dogma. (of absolute acceptance of any argument, that may support the hypothesis of AGW)

    In your reflex response of August 1st, 2008 at 3:34 am (854/5?)^ you dismissively wrote in part:

    Bob_FJ, [1] OK , so you have your own interpretation of what is happening in the Antarctic. [I delete your irrelevant comments re Peter Taylor]
    [2] Why should I believe you rather than the trained scientists at NSIDC ?

    Response #[1] NO, I don’t have MY OWN interpretation of what is happening in the Antarctic, I simply agree with the blindingly obvious, (to me a mechanical engineer), of the engineering/geological explanation already given to you briefly, (see link #3 above.…Filchner), by USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior / U.S. Geological Survey)

    Responce #[2] As I have tried to explain to you, the hypothesis of significant perennially sustained melt-water cutting deep-down into fissures, (crevasses), way below sea-level, cannot be supported with thermo-mechanical engineering logic. However, don’t let that impede some budding glaciologists from seeking funds to research the idea of laser-cutting SUMMER melt-water, and thus more lovely trips back to West Antarctica in the SUMMER. (I’d really love to go there too, summertime, funded, if I had the chance! Wow!)
    When you refer to “trained scientists at NSIDC”, would you happen to know if they have done a few years studying engineering principles in properties of materials, deflection of beams, diaphragms and plates etc etc etc and whatnot? (Not to mention some other engineering stuff, such as thermodynamics!)

    It seems to me that the USGS might have a few geologists and engineers aboard and a much lesser or hopefully nil proportion of airy-fairy theoretical physicists!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Peter, I hope to shortly post some aircraft oblique photos and satellite stuff showing the AVAILABLE images of hinging failure, (calving) of the 3 huge Filchner WINTER 1986 icebergs, progressively as at 1957, 1973, and Nov. 1986. There are four links involved, so presumably they will be spam-delayed. I would like you to especially carefully study the 1957 summer oblique aircraft photos of the widening chasm, and see if you can comprehend any mechanical processes that are believed to have started somewhere around 1946. Then see if you can justify the NSDIC hypothesis of melt-water cause!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    TONY ^ At the time of composition of this post off-line, I cannot be sure of the post numbers, because I have an earlier post that may or may not be in spam queue, but if it does clear, it will presumably shift all the later posts by one digit. See for example Robin’s 839, and also my 836, same topic. (Just a comment; I know it’s not easy, just trying to help.)

  7. Southern Hemisphere Extent Anomalies June 2008

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

  8. Pete,

    Regarding my post above….. # 856:

    Is the Southern Hemisphere immune to the effects of global warming and

  9. Re: Bob #855 here:

    The comment numbering is beyond my control and there has to be a spam filter. I see the mounds of stuff it takes out every day. But here is a good work-around;

    Hover the mouse cursor over the number of the comment you wish to reference.

    Right click and select ‘Copy link location.

    Set up a dynamic link in the usual way using the ‘Link’ button from the Quicktags button bar above the comment input box.

    Each comment has a unique underlying reference number that does not change if comments are re-ordered and the numbers that are displayed change.

    The only downside is that, if you are drafting your comments in Word then copying them in, you will have to do the links in the comment input box before hitting submit.

    See the first line of this comment for how this works. In this case the unique number is 1312 as opposed to 855, but actually you don’t even need to know that; it all happens behind the scenes.

  10. Not certain what happened to my previous comment. It was cut off.

    Pete,

    Regarding my post above # 856:

    Is the Southern Hemisphere immune to the effects of global warming and “catastrophic” CO2 rise?

    (Notice I used a question mark).

    Someone forgot to tell Hansen to “adjust” this data.

  11. Sorry that this is a bit off thread, but a good friend in Canada sent me the following link:

    Morgan on abiotic oil

    I first saw references to this idea a couple of years ago, but no one seems to take it very seriously. Does anyone have views about whether there may be something in Morgan’s hypothesis, or is he just barking mad?

  12. Peter: you still haven’t answered what you have described as my “tiresome” questions. This goes back to your post 473 (13 July) where you contrasted “mainstream” and “fringe” science. You defined the latter as science that is “well outside what is generally considered the normal range of scientific opinion”; you mentioned intelligent design as an example. My post 487 commented on this and raised a question arising from the IPCC report. You said (post 518) that you didn’t understand what I meant. In response (post 528 on 15 July), I asked you two clear questions. Despite repeated reminders, I’m awaiting your answer to these questions.

    That’s the history – I don’t know why I’ve had to wait so long. But, to make things easier for you, I’ll spell it out (yet) again. In my original post, I drew attention to a table (SPM.2.) on page 8 of the SPM of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, Working Group 1. It’s headed:

    Recent trends, assessment of human influence on the trend and projections for extreme weather events for which there is an observed late-20th century trend.

    You’ll see that the table lists seven “Phenomena” – including, for example, “Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas” and “Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas”. I referred you to the third column, headed, “Likelihood of a human contribution”. That’s interesting in itself: “a human contribution” is hugely different from the “due to” used elsewhere by the IPCC – a “human contribution” could be as little as 1%, whereas “due to” means 100%. The “human contribution” is assessed, for five of the “Phenomena”, as “more likely than not” and, for the other two, as “likely”. (Note: none is assessed as “very likely” – the IPCC phrase we are used to hearing about.) Moreover, for four of the seven phenomena, a footnote (f) says “Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies” i.e. it would appear to be little more than guesswork.

    To summarise, I’ll take one of the listed phenomena: “Warm spells/heat waves. Frequency increases over most land areas.” Here a human contribution is judged (but without a formal attribution study) to be “more likely than not”. In other words, there’s a better than evens chance that there may be some human contribution to the observed phenomenon. (That, incidentally, is a conclusion with which I’m reasonably sure both Spencer and Lindzen, whose inclusion within “mainstream science” is you say “debateable”, would agree.)

    Now the questions. [Extracts from your post 473 are in quotation marks]. Question 1: Do you think that the findings of the climate scientists who produced Table SPM.2. are part of “mainstream science” and therefore within “the common current of rational thought of the vast majority” or do you think they are expounding irrational “fringe science”? Question 2: Whatever your answer to Question 1, what do you think is the impact of these findings on the claimed scientific consensus about GW causation?

  13. Robin,

    I would consider all the scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports to be part of the mainstream. By mainstream I don’t necessarily mean part of the consensus. I do agree that it is possible to be one without the other, and not just on the sceptical side of the argument. Many mainstream scientists would argue that the IPCC reports, and the consensus itself, are too cautious. On the sceptical side, I’d include people like Spencer and Lindzen as mainstream too, though maybe many wouldn’t.

    Fringe science is difficult to define, but you know what it is when you see it! By and large, its developed in complete isolation from the mainstream. If you want examples I’d include ‘intelligent design’, creationism, psychokinesis etc. I wouldn’t say Lindzen and Spencer were in complete isolation at least as far as their climate science is concerned.

    The scientific consensus on climate change can be approximated as the subject matter goes into the IPCC reports. And so, the examples you have given and the table you have quoted are part of that consensus too. The consensus is more a range of views that one fixed view. For example, the idea of ‘tipping points’, the link between AGW, hurricanes and tornados etc, the link between AGW and droughts, are still points of debate between scientists who would consider themselves to be part of the broader consensus.

  14. Tony,

    I would expect that those whose psychology leads them to doubt the science of AGW might also be tempted to believe in, not just, the idea of abiotic oil, but also the idea that abiotic oil is being produced in sufficent quantities to effectively negate the idea of “peak oil”.

    If so, I would ask why US oil production peaked in the 1970’s? If it’s just a question of drilling a little deeper to get at the new stuff why hasn’t it been done? The guys who make a living drilling for oil have learned the hard way that they need to drill into sedimentary rocks, which would indicate a biological origin for oil, to find it. There is no way they would be drilling 200 km offshore if abiotic oil was available onshore.

    It is possible that some hydocarbons are produced abiotically, but there is absolutely no evidence that they are present in anywhere near the large quantities necessary to rescue us all! You’ve got to be deeply into conspiracy theories to believe that the oil companies are keeping it all quiet for their own short term gain.

  15. Thank you, Peter – that’s a very helpful and interesting response. Essentially I agree with it – especially your clear view that the consensus on climate change is a very wide church, wide enough to include those scientists contributing to the IPCC report (and therefore I presume others who agree with them) who think mankind’s contribution to (let alone responsibility for) GW is uncertain and those who agree with the IPCC’s overall conclusions. The trouble is that so many politicians and much of the media think that the consensus means that nearly all scientists agree that mankind is clearly responsible for global warming (or even more absurdly “climate change”) and that therefore “the debate is over” – when plainly it doesn’t mean that at all. Indeed it could well be argued that this concept of consensus is really meaningless. It’s certainly not very helpful.

    I’m also interested in your view that it’s possible for a scientist to be part of the mainstream but not to subscribe even to that widely defined consensus – so, at least regarding the climate, both Hansen and Spencer are part of the mainstream. But that of course means that the term “mainstream” is not very helpful either. But I agree with you that you know fringe science when you see it.

  16. This carefully written article is worth reading.

  17. Here are links for some views of the progressive calving of three huge icebergs from the filchner ice-shelf. The aerial oblique photos in 1957 where the failure is well advanced (thought to have started in the 1940’s) are particularly interesting. Quote USGS:

    Crevasses often form in ice shelves, due to hinging, forward “creeping”, and other forces. The annotated 1973 image shows such a crevasse, called the Grand Chasms. In 1957 the Grand Chasms were 53 m deep, with water and ice at the bottom. They were 5 km wide in 1957, 11 km wide in 1973, and 19 km wide in 1985.10 (As a comparison, the Grand Canyon is up to 29 km wide.) As expected, it was at the Grand Chasms that the shelf finally broke off into icebergs, in 1986.

    1957 http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Filchner/Filchner
    1957 http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Filchner/Filchner
    1973 http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Filchner/Filchner
    1986 http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Filchner/Filchner

  18. Peter Re: 864

    I would expect that those whose psychology leads them to doubt the science of AGW might also be tempted to believe in, not just, the idea of abiotic oil, but also the idea that abiotic oil is being produced in sufficent quantities to effectively negate the idea of “peak oil”.

    Surley AGW sceptics are far less likely to accept implausible ideas like Morgan’s because they have a predispositions to question what they are told? They tend to be people who need convincing before they form their opinions, not afterward, and it is this characteristic that leads them to question the AGW ortodoxy.

  19. Hi Peter,

    You wrote (853): “Yes there is some truth in what you say, and it is possible that economics will be the key driver in that direction. But, on the other hand, it’s equally possible that the big energy companies will focus instead on such technologies as oil from shale, oil from tar sands, even oil from coal. These are very dirty processes, with high CO2 emissions. There is more than enough carbon locked up in coal and oil shale to cook the planet if it is released too quickly.

    To the first part, BP as well as Chevron tell us daily that they are pursuing alternate, non-petroleum energy sources. BP even calls itself BP = “beyond petroleum”.

    Are they simply lying? I sort of doubt it, since they see that there is profit to be made by diversifying early, before the source of their earnings dries up. These are pretty astute business folks, Peter.

    But let’s run a quick sanity check on your second point “There is more than enough carbon locked up in coal and oil shale to cook the planet if it is released too quickly.”

    Let’s assume all the carbon locked up in coal, oil and oil shale gets released at essentially the same rate we are releasing CO2 today and that all growth (over today’s emission rate) will be covered by other carbon-neutral sources (nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, etc.)

    World reserves of coal are 1,000 Gt (billion tons).

    At current (2004) consumption of 6 Gt/year,
    This will last 167 years

    Assume all coal is used as fuel and it is 91% carbon

    World reserves of oil (excl. tar sands and oil shale) are 157 Gt (1,200 billion bbl)
    World-wide tar sands equal another 23 Gt (174 billion bbl)
    World-wide oil shale equals another 393 Gt (393 billion bbl)
    For a total of 573 Gt

    Assume 25% of oil is used for non-fuel end uses (petrochemicals, plastics, fertilizers, etc.) and oil is 85% carbon

    At current (2005) consumption of 3.5 Gt/year,
    This will last 164 years

    So let’s say that all this stuff is used up by the year 2170.

    CO2 emitted,
    From coal = 3337 Gt CO2
    From oil = 1284 Gt CO2
    From both = 4621 Gt CO2

    Mass of the atmosphere is 5,000,000 Gt

    Assume (as is the case today) 60% of the emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. The rest either dissipates into space or gets absorbed some other way (oceans, etc.).

    This means that 2773 Gt CO2 will be added to the atmosphere

    For an increase in concentration of
    555 ppm(mass) or
    365 ppmv

    Over 192 years (2008 to 2170) or
    An average increase of 2.25 ppmv/year
    (Compared to current average rate of around 2 ppmv/year)

    Running through the greenhouse calculation:
    · Case 1: No feedback assumed; use IPCC estimate for CO2 radiative forcing alone = 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.7C
    · Case 2: Use IPCC assumed feedbacks, leading to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C

    C1 CO2 concentration in 2008 = 384 ppmv
    C2 CO2 concentration in 2170 = 749 ppmv
    C2/C1 ratio = 1.95
    Lnratio = 0.6681

    2xCO2
    C2/C1 ratio = 2.00
    Lnratio = 0.6931

    Case 1
    Temperature increase (2008 to 2170) = 0.7 * 0.6681 / 0.6931 = 0.7C

    Case 2
    Temperature increase (2008 to 2170) = 3.0 * 0.6681 / 0.6931 = 2.9C

    So it appears that we would not “cook the planet” from this extreme premise in either case but whether or not we would warm it noticeably at all depends on whether or not one accepts the IPCC model assumptions on a 3 degree C climate sensitivity for a 2xCO2 scenario.

    If (as physical observations reported by Spencer on clouds and Minschwaner + Dessler on water vapor show) the climate sensitivity is only a fraction of the 3C assumed in the models cited by IPCC, we will have no noticeable increase in warming even when we’ve used up all the fossil fuel there is.

    Regards,

    Max

  20. Hi Peter,

    To your final point (853): “That’s where carbon trading comes in. It tips the economic scales in favour of the cleaner energy alternatives.”

    Actually, it’s not even required to do this. Peak oil, market pressures and economic opportunities in non-fossil fuel technologies will take care of this all by themselves.

    Brazil has successful sugar cane ethanol as a motor fuel.

    The USA has tried with massive government subsidies to do the same with corn-based ethanol. This is a total flop (and, in addition, has put pressure on global food supplies).

    Keep the government out of these deals.

    Subsidies (from carbon trading or taxes) would be an extremely inefficient method for financing “green energy” research for several reasons.

    A good part of the tax burden ultimately loaded onto the consumers’ backs will get lost in “administrative handling costs”, “collection fees” and (especially if the UN is involved at all) in “kickbacks” and “corruption”, “rake-offs” by hedge funds, trading companies, etc. and general inefficiency, so that only a fraction will be available to support the development of “green alternates”.

    Dishing out this money will be another bureaucratic nightmare fraught with “special interests” and more opportunity for “bribery” and “kickbacks”.

    Non-efficient alternates will be “kept alive” at great cost (corn-ethanol), hampering the development of other competing technologies.

    Face it, Peter: carbon trading will help make guys like Al Gore (who have a piece of the action) even wealthier than they already are today but will do nothing to “tip the economic scales in favour of the cleaner energy alternatives”, as you have so eloquently expressed it.

    That’s a pipe dream.

    Regards,

    Max

  21. Max,

    I’m afraid that Peter and many others like him simply want something for nothing…..that’s the mentality that you’re dealing with.

    I just finished watching a news story where some “Democratic Strategist” suggested that Exxon/Mobil should pay billions of dollars to someone, (the US treasury), because they have made record profits recently.

    His mind is made up……someone has to PAY. These people feel that because someone has more money than they do they are entitled to it for doing absolutely nothing.

    The most recent game is to blame Exxon/Mobil for providing oil, then claiming it harms “the planet”……ergo, because they have produced a “harmful” product, they should be responsible for providing everyone in the US with a color television set…….redistribution of wealth.

    That’s what this is all about. Exxon/Mobil produces oil which makes the world warmer and screws up the weather which affects everyone and creates victims of everything/everyone; therefore Exxon/Mobil must pay restitution to all of the “victims” of their “ill gotten gain”. They won’t stop until they make everyone as miserable as they are.

    Coca Cola makes more of a profit margin than Exxon…..they just haven’t been demonized by the trial lawyers yet. They are lining things up to confiscate money from successful companies to pay for their goofy social schemes as they did with “big tobacco”.

    If you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it.

    Nationalizing oil companies will be the next step. How well did that work in the United Kingdom?

    By the way, why does a gallon of gasoline cost twice as much in Europe as in the US?

  22. Juuuussstttttt of topic, but I think this is pretty big news.

    CONFIRMED: Water on Mars

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/confirmed-water-on-mars/

  23. Max,

    If you are right in saying that “Peak oil, market pressures and economic opportunities in non-fossil fuel technologies will take care of this all by themselves.” what would it matter if there was, or was not, a carbon tax, or carbon trading? The government would be trying to tax something that no-one wanted to buy anyway. So you’d have nothing to worry about!

    You already know that your calculations on carbon sensitivity are not generally accepted, and the true picture is much worse than you are painting, so I’ll say no more about them!

    However, I do need to say something about your assumption of …at current (2004) consumption of 6 Gt/year. This will last 167 years

    Energy consumption tends to follow economic growth which is maybe a few % per year. Even a growth figure of 4% p.a. , which is often considered to be quite modest, would mean that energy consumption would double after 18 years. Then after another 18 years it would redouble, and then redouble again and so on. I haven’t checked your figure of 1000Gt of coal, I suspect that there may still be a lot more undiscovered under the ocean, but it isn’t going to last 167 years if there are no restraints placed on its use.

    Tony,

    Surley AGW sceptics are far less likely to accept implausible ideas like Morgan’s because they have a predispositions to question what they are told?

    Well they do seem to have more a predisposition to question the accepted scientific line, but that is not quite the same thing as “what they are told”. In any case, the people who are currently pushing the abiotic oil line are nearly all climate sceptics too.

  24. A perfect example of “ill gotten gain”.

    Aug 01, 2008
    Al Gore’s Carbon Empire: Cashing in on Climate Change

    By Fred Lucas, Capital Research Foundation Watch

    Al Gore says everyone will benefit when new government rules require companies to pay to reduce global warming. But some people will benefit more than others, as will some companies. Benefiting most are those like the ex-vice president who can set up and invest in companies that will profit from the federal regulations imposing heavy costs on others.
    Who pays for Gore’s crusade? In accounting for the $300 million in costs for the public education campaign of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group’s website says that Al Gore pays for much of the project himself using the proceeds from his film and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and the $750,000 cash prize attached to the Nobel Peace Prize. It adds that he “has since received additional support in the form of private donations from those concerned about solving the climate crisis.”
    Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times reported on the newspaper’s Dot Earth blog March 31 that the Alliance raised half the sum – $150 million – for the ad campaign. But from whom? Gore says he put up about $3 million, but when asked the question on TV’s “60 Minutes,” he would not identify other funders. Solar and wind power companies? Hedge funds and venture capitalists? Gore’s own company, Generation Investment Management?
    Gore and the global warming crowd are usually quick to challenge the credibility and sincerity of any scientist, climatologist or policy organization skeptical of man-made global warming. They call skeptics “shills” for Big Oil or, worse, “deniers,” invoking the term used against anti-Semites who deny the Holocaust. But they refuse to acknowledge their own growing financial interest in the carbon control industry. Barack Obama has said if he is elected president, he will be sure to find a prominent role for Al Gore in his administration. If that happens, will anyone raise questions about Al Gore’s conflict of interest?
    Since leaving public office, Al Gore has become a one-man conglomerate: He writes books, stars in a movie, commands massive speaking fees, and sits on numerous corporate boards. According to Bloomberg News, Gore had less than $2 million when he left the vice presidency in 2001. Today his fortune is more than $100 million (Fast Company, July 2007) and the prospects are that he will grow even richer mounting his crusade against global warming.
    The prospect of carbon regulation is why major corporations have latched onto Gore. He is the environmental movement’s bullhorn to the world, proclaiming the crisis of planetary warming. But the truth is that Gore also has become a bullhorn for corporations that are ready to cash in on the hysteria.
    Read much more here.

    http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1217525953.pdf

  25. Aug 01, 2008
    Blowing Hot Air Up Our Shorts
    By Paul Driessen

    T. Boone Pickens is being lionized for his efforts to legislate a transformation to “eco-friendly” wind energy. We’re “the Saudi Arabia of wind,” he argues. We need to “overcome our addiction to foreign oil,” by harnessing wind to replace natural gas in electricity generation, and using that gas to power more cars and buses. If Congress would simply “mandate the formation” of wind corridors, provide eminent domain authority to seize rights-of-way for transmission lines, and renew the subsidies for this energy, America can make the switch in a decade, he says.

    Pickens’ $58-million media pitch makes good ad copy, especially in league with Senator Harry Reid’s absurd claim that oil and coal “make us sick.” However, his policy prescriptions would bring new energy, economic, legal and environmental problems – and a price tag of over $1.2 trillion. Hydrocarbon fuels built modern America, gave us the technologies and living standards we enjoy today, helped us eradicate diseases that plagued earlier generations, and boosted US life expectancy from 50 in 1900 to nearly 80 today. They still provide 85% of our total energy, and we could greatly reduce our reliance on oil imports if we would simply end the outrageous policies that keep our nation’s abundant energy resources locked up. We have enough oil, natural gas, oil shale, coal and uranium to provide power for centuries. We have a growing consensus that we need to drill, onshore and off. But partisan intransigence and ridiculous environmental claims prevent us from utilizing these American resources.

    Wind contributes more every year to our energy mix. But it still provides only 1% of our electricity – compared to 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear and 7% for hydroelectric. Moreover, we will need 135 gigawatts of new electricity generation by 2020, whereas only 57 GW are planned. We can and should harness the wind. But 22% by 2020 is far-fetched.

    Wind power is expensive (even with subsidies), intermittent and unreliable. Many turbines are 400 feet tall and carry 130-foot, 7-ton, bird-slicing blades. They operate at only 20-30% of rated capacity – compared to 85% for coal, gas and nuclear plants – and provide little power during summer daytime hours, when air-conditioning demand is highest, but winds are at low ebb. Using wind to replace all gas-fired power plants would require over 300,000 1.5-MW turbines, covering Midwestern “wind belt” agricultural and wildlife acreage equivalent to South Carolina. Building and installing these turbines requires 5 to 10 times more steel and concrete than is needed to build far more reliable nuclear plants to generate the same amount of electricity, says Berkeley engineer Per Peterson. Add in steel and cement needed to build transmission lines from distant wind farms to urban consumers, and the costs multiply.

    Since adequate wind is available only 3-8 hours a day, we would also need expensive gas-fired generating plants that mostly run at idle, kicking in whenever the wind dies down. That means still more money, cement and steel -and still higher electricity prices.

    Read more here.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hotairupourshorts.pdf

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha