Hydrogen Infrastructure

[Dave World]

Here I am again, at the gas pump, trying to figure out why the price just went up thirty cents a gallon in the last month. I'm unhappy about it, and I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Who knows why the price of gasoline skyrockets at any given time.?

 

It seems that the slightest event sends the price of petroleum through the roof. It could be a natural or man made disaster, or a political happening. You would think that, since the first oil crisis of the early 1970s, our society would have been working on solutions to the volatile nature of the petroleum industry.

 

The problem is, the energy industry makes large profits whether the situation in the world is stable or not. It seems like the roller coaster ride is nothing more than business as usual for the energy providers in our country. We have all been there at the gas pumps after months of continuous hikes in the price, saying "there has got to be a better solution to our energy needs".

 

The solution to our energy needs is actually quite simple in some regards. It is the hydrogen infrastructure, what I call Ekson Exhilaration. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. When hydrogen is extracted from water by renewable electricity resources like wind power and solar energy we largely remove the environmental equation from securing our energy needs and create a true home grown energy source.

 

The big question is, if all the technology already exists for the creation of the hydrogen infrastructure, why haven't we built it? The answers are: money, and control of the energy sector of our economy. To me the issues of money (who is going to pay for building the hydrogen infrastructure) and control (who is going to own the hydrogen infrastructure) are of a societal nature. If our society wants to build the hydrogen infrastructure, it will have to start as a grass roots movement.

 

READ MORE ====>> http://www.daveworld...hilaration.html

[CaptainPanic]

The problem is only money. As soon as sustainable sources of energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal) are actually cheaper than fossil sources, they are used at a large scale.

 

At the moment, with increasing fossil fuel prices and decreasing sustainable energy prices, and especially solar energy becoming a lot cheaper, I think we're near a tipping point.

[Dave World]

The problem is only money. As soon as sustainable sources of energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal) are actually cheaper than fossil sources, they are used at a large scale.

 

At the moment, with increasing fossil fuel prices and decreasing sustainable energy prices, and especially solar energy becoming a lot cheaper, I think we're near a tipping point.

 

Actually, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, et cetera are already cheaper than fossil fuels, by a large margin. That is, if true accounting is used. The problem is that the "price" of oil and coal is heavily subsidized by our lobby-controlled government. The same holds true for nuclear power.

 

The subsidies that keep the price of oil down include the immense military involvement in the Middle East needed to maintain control of the source and pricing of crude oil. Then there are the direct subsidies.^[1]The coal industry has enjoyed around $345 billion in subsidies so far.^[2] Nuclear is the worst of all, what with the cost of decommissioning plants, not to mention the Price Anderson Act, which indemnifies the nuclear industry against the cost of disastrous accidents.

 

In all fairness, our government would be doing the right thing in terms on economic and social benefits were we to heavily subsidize renewable sources of power. And, we haven't even gotten into the discussion about anthropomorphic global warming.

[swansont]

The subsidies that keep the price of oil down include the immense military involvement in the Middle East needed to maintain control of the source and pricing of crude oil. Then there are the direct subsidies.^[1]The coal industry has enjoyed around $345 billion in subsidies so far.^[2]

 

$345 billion is the total cost of the estimated impact burden, not the value of the direct subsidies.

 

(I trust it's not too much to ask that, going forward, you use black type like the rest of us for the bulk of your posts. Some people find the colors annoying; they're for emphasis only.)

[Moontanman]

Actually, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, et cetera are already cheaper than fossil fuels, by a large margin. That is, if true accounting is used. The problem is that the "price" of oil and coal is heavily subsidized by our lobby-controlled government. The same holds true for nuclear power.

 

I am a nuclear power enthusiast, nuclear will have it's day, but not unless we use new designs and use thorium as the reactant but that is another thread... Most of the reactors we are using should never have been built and are the result of nuclear weapon research instead of strictly energy propagation...

 

The subsidies that keep the price of oil down include the immense military involvement in the Middle East needed to maintain control of the source and pricing of crude oil. Then there are the direct subsidies.^[1]The coal industry has enjoyed around $345 billion in subsidies so far.^[2] Nuclear is the worst of all, what with the cost of decommissioning plants, not to mention the Price Anderson Act, which indemnifies the nuclear industry against the cost of disastrous accidents.

 

Hydrogen does offer possibilities but it is not with out it's own problems not the least of which is it's very low energy density compared to oil, and coal...

 

In all fairness, our government would be doing the right thing in terms on economic and social benefits were we to heavily subsidize renewable sources of power. And, we haven't even gotten into the discussion about anthropomorphic global warming.

 

I can live with that assertion, I see no reason not to pursue renewables, it would be a hardship if it was forced on us but the writing is on the wall, oil will run out and is a vast misuse of, what should be, an important industrial feed stock...

[swansont]

The infrastructure problem is twofold: supply and demand. You don't have cars that run on Hydrogen, and you don't have hydrogen stations to service cars. You need one for the other to be built, and it would take a long time to get the system built. Gas stations had decades to sprout up everywhere. As an analogy, cell phones had limited use until the infrastructure was built out. I don't see a viable business plan for a buildout for a pure hydrogen economy car. I think the best bet is hybrid cars, as we see with gas/electric hybrids. (If someone comes up with a viable battery-swap option, it will probably drive that solution forward.) You need viable hydrogen production and delivery. Part of that is the necessary green production of hydrogen, because without it you've solved no environmental problems. That buildout has to occur as well. More time and more money.

[Moontanman]

While it's true that internal combustion engines run quite well on hydrogen if they are modified to do so, anecdotal evidence would suggest that running a car on hydrogen would be as easy as propane or methane and if either are used to run cars engines last longer, this might be a plus...

 

The energy density of hydrogen is quite low when used as a motor fuel... but even using methane over gasoline would improve pollution hugely..

 

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/i6W09tDtK-48PTmzHazOuw/3.2.3.Jacobson_Golden_07.pdf

 

Finally, even if HFCV are fueled

by a fossil fuel such as natural gas, if no carbon is sequestered during hydrogen

production, and 1% of methane in the feedstock gas is leaked to the environment,

natural gas HFCV were still estimated to achieve a significant reduction in

greenhouse gas and air pollution emission over FFOV.

 

However the above paper does not support this one, I'm not completely sure either is entirely accurate...

 

Then you have the ozone problem, i get mixed results from this search but this one says it would result in a 8% decrease in the ozone layer.

 

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Hydrogen-Harm-Ozone12jun03.htm

 

"This would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and the disturbance of ozone chemistry," the researchers wrote, resulting in bigger and longer-lasting ozone "holes" in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, where drops in ozone levels have been recorded over the past 20 years. They estimated that ozone depletion could be as much as 8 percent.

[Dave World]

$345 billion is the total cost of the estimated impact burden, not the value of the direct subsidies.

 

(I trust it's not too much to ask that, going forward, you use black type like the rest of us for the bulk of your posts. Some people find the colors annoying; they're for emphasis only.)

 

Sorry about the colored font usage in previous posts. Notice, I didn't do that in this thread. I didn't know that it was for emphasis only. I try hard to follow rules, but that wasn't made clear anywhere in your guidelines. This tendency comes from a 30 year career in editing and typesetting where style is sometimes beneficial.

[JohnB]

Well Dave, let's use a "true" accounting then.

 

Firstly you claim

The coal industry has enjoyed around $345 billion in subsidies so far.

 

And you reference "ThnkProgress" who are paid activists. I'm sure we'll get a "true" accounting from them. Anyway you speak of $345 billion, but that is since the industry started some 100 years ago.

 

So what have you got for your money?

 

The top three oil companies in the United States are ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron. According to the SEC filings of those companies, as analyzed by Forbes, ExxonMobils pretax income in 2010 was $52 billion, from which it paid $21.6 billion in income taxes worldwide, leaving a net income of $30.5 billion. That equals a tax rate of 45 percent, which is 10 percent above the statutory corporate rate of 35 percent.

 

ConocoPhillips earned $19.8 billion in pretax income in 2010 and it paid $8.3 billion in taxes, leaving $11.4 billion in income. That equals a tax rate of 42 percent. Chevron made $32 billion and then paid $12.9 billion in income taxes, leaving a net income of $19.1 billion, which equals a tax rate of 40 percent.

 

ExxonMobils total tax bill, worldwide, was $89 billion in 2010, comprised mostly of sales and excise taxes. ConocoPhillips, for comparison, paid an additional $16.8 billion in other taxes beyond its income taxes, reported Forbes, and Chevron paid an additional $18.2 billion in other taxes in 2010.

 

Quite a lot actually.

 

The oil and gas industry also generates $533.5 billion in labor income, which equals about 6 percent of U.S. labor income, according to the study. The value added to the U.S. economy by the oil and natural gas industry is $1.1 trillion (7.7 percent of GDP), according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

 

In 2010, the oil and gas industry spent roughly $275 billion on capital projects and since 2000, the industry has invested $2 trillion in American capital projects in resource exploration, acquisition, research and alternative energy moving America towards energy independence and cleaner energy, according to API.

 

$1.1 trillion annually in your GDP and they've almost as much since 2000 on capital projects as they've recieved in "subsidies" in the last 100 years. In dirct taxes they're paying 10 times as much as the annual "subsidies". If you can't see that giving $1 to get back $10 is a good deal, your economic ability is severely lacking.

 

I notice that on your page, while you complain about subsidies and tax breaks for oil and coal companies you are asking for the very same for yourself, plus large amounts of recycled expensive metal to be given gratis, plus an lot of land, plus time, etc, etc. You also don't actually mention how you intend to create all the hydrogen required for a hydrogen economy. Having done the figures I know why this is. bu maybe you should let everybody else in on the secret? In the interest of "true" accounting?

Edited July 20, 2012 by JohnB

[Dave World]

JohnB,

 

A problem with discussing this topic in this particular forum category, is that we are operating here at the conflux of science, economics, politics, history and sociology.

 

The oil companies in question engage in more than a little bit of subterfuge. When they claim to be paying hefty taxes, they are referring to an aggregate of federal income taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes. When Forbes compares that lump sum with the rate of federal income taxes paid by individuals, that is comparing apples to oranges, I'd say. Look at a three-year time period instead of just one year.

 

Let's talk coal, for example Peabody energy in the years 2008 to 2010 made $1,008.2 million in profit and paid $71 million income taxes on that profit, for an average rate of 7%.

 

Exxon Mobil made a profit of $19,655.2 million during those years, paid $2,783.2 million income taxes on that profit, for an average rate of $14.2%. [ figures from Citizens for Tax Justice ] http://ctj.org/ctjre...s_2008-2010.php

 

Then there is the subsidy of not having to pay for the disposal of their waste products, like all other industries must. One can't have a logical discussion about this topic without acknowledging that the prime waste product of the fossil fuel industry is CO₂. Is this not so? Who pays for the disposal of that waste? Everybody except the polluters. The insurance industry is making record payouts from extreme climactic events, the Pentagon now adjudges global warming to be the #1 security threat to the United States, and agriculture is taking record losses. We the citizens pay for all of that.

 

Top minds in the fields of economics and of anthropomorphic climate change agree that the best approach would be to heavily tax the carbon unearthed by the fossil fuel industry and then sold on world markets. Then we would use the revenue raised to promote renewable energy. This would serve to even the playing field and send us in the right direction of development. This backing comes from a diverse list that includes George Schultz, Michael Bloomberg, Stephen Chu, Paul Volker, Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, Arthur Laffer, Lester Brown and even ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

 

Then there are oil depletion allowances, which the companies use to recover 100% of exploration and drilling costs. The "expensing" of intangible drilling costs — including exploration and development — dates to 1916. The oil-depletion allowance dates to 1926. The biggest firms, such as Exxon Mobil, have not qualified for the depletion allowance since the 1970s, but other large oil firms known as independents still do. [ reference Washington Post ]

 

http://www.washingto...NutG_story.html

 

Of course the Ekson Exhilaration plan seeks every possible source of income to bring about the most important thing that we as a species can do. Government subsidies, volunteers and donations should be as much a part of this as were the sacrifices made that allowed the U.S. to win World War 2.

 

During and in the decade after WW2 for every $1 of income tax paid by individual Americans, corporations paid $1.50 in taxes on their profits. Today for every $1 paid by citizens, the corporations pay 25 cents. We're facing the largest crisis ever known to our species. Strong measures are called for.

 

The Forbes article makes the case that a corporation paying a 42% tax rate is higher than the statutory limit of 35% in the U.S. Comparing to a ridiculously low 35% on top income earners is specious. When this country was digging its way out of the Great Depression and paying for WW2, the wealthiest of individuals paid income taxes at a rate of 94%. Corporations got very profitable during the war and, so, were expected to feed a lot of that back into the system that made their profits possible.

 

During the last 30 years our corporations, fossil fuel extractors included, have grown exceedingly profitable. They receive the benefit of a great deal of societal largesse, including untold military expenditures for oil. It is now their turn to kick in the bucks. That is my understanding of economics. A business should look after the well being of the system that allows it to exist.

 

 

 

 

[JohnB]

The insurance industry is making record payouts from extreme climactic events, the Pentagon now adjudges global warming to be the #1 security threat to the United States, and agriculture is taking record losses.

 

You make three claims in this sentence and at least 1 is totally false. (or is at least being misused) How about some proof?

 

Let's talk coal, for example Peabody energy in the years 2008 to 2010 made $1,008.2 million in profit and paid $71 million income taxes on that profit, for an average rate of 7%.

 

Exxon Mobil made a profit of $19,655.2 million during those years, paid $2,783.2 million income taxes on that profit, for an average rate of $14.2%. [ figures from Citizens for Tax Justice ]

 

Where in the report? Don't expect others to trudge through 71 pages to find the tidbits.

 

Top minds in the fields of economics and of anthropomorphic climate change agree that the best approach would be to heavily tax the carbon unearthed by the fossil fuel industry and then sold on world markets. Then we would use the revenue raised to promote renewable energy. This would serve to even the playing field and send us in the right direction of development. This backing comes from a diverse list that includes George Schultz, Michael Bloomberg, Stephen Chu, Paul Volker, Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, Arthur Laffer, Lester Brown and even ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

 

Since commercial electricity generation from wind power has been around for some 70 years, when will it be "developed"? BTW, we have a bloody Carbon Dioxide Tax and it will do absolutely nothing for the environment. And if politicians and activists make it to your list of "top minds", then your bar is set way too low.

 

Then there is the subsidy of not having to pay for the disposal of their waste products, like all other industries must. One can't have a logical discussion about this topic without acknowledging that the prime waste product of the fossil fuel industry is CO2. Is this not so?

 

While it is so, it is also a silly point. The primary waste product of every human alive happens to be CO2. Shall we literally tax the air we breathe?

 

The upshot is this;

 

1. You've found something you don't like.

2. You've found some activists that agree with you.

3. You think that the thing you don't like should be taxed into extinction.

4. The money from that tax should be given to you.

5. You expect people to work their little butts off for gratis to ensure the success of your grand plan.

 

You have a grand plan to solve something that you cannot even demonstrate is in fact a problem. Also your solution will not solve the problem even if it exists. This is the vital point that activists simply do not get. Even if we went to fully renewable power tomorrow and scrubbed the atmosphere back to 280 ppm of CO2, the climate will still change. It will change whether we do nothing or kill off 3/4 of the population and all go and live in grass huts. No matter what we do, it will always change. You can no more stop climate change than you can stop the Sun rising tomorrow morning or stop the tide coming in.

 

The thing that never fails to amaze me (although I should be used to it by now) is that no matter what the "looming disaster" envisaged by the environmental whackos, it can always be solved by taxing somebody to death and giving the money to the aforesaid whackos. Honestly, it's as predictable as the "Consensus" position taken by a conference where they start voting on the "Statement" a month before the conference starts. (And they throw the voting open to internet yobbos)

[Dave World]

Hold onto those thoughts. Time will tell. It does amaze me, though, to find a science denier on this particular forum.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Dave World

[Dave World]

Sorry it took me so long to give you a source for my statements. More to come.

 

From Science News 1/4/12

Insurance payouts point to climate change. A three-decade trend shows a steady global increase in weather and climate related disasters.

 

Munich Reinsurance corporate headquarters in Munich reported that the period of 1980-2010 did not see a change in the rate of earthquakes and tsunamis, but there was a noticeable increase in the payouts the firm made due to extreme weather events.

 

what hasn't maintained a constant pace over time have been the numbers of storms, droughts and wildfires. These weather and climate-related events have been climbing steadily since 1980, increasing in number, severity (such as average wind intensity) and often in lives lost. That trend, Rauch said, provides strong evidence that climate change is already impacting human suffering and the world's economies.

 

My link

[JohnB]

Riiiiiight. Asking for evidence to back up a claim makes me a "science denier". As that is the very essence of science your credibility has just gone down the "S bend".

 

And for proof, you provide some sort of op-ed blog piece? Try reading this thread which covers the most recent IPCC report about extreme events.

 

So how about the Pentagon claim? Or agriculture? Bearing in mind that there is a drought in the US and agriculture will take a hit in a drought.

Edited August 1, 2012 by JohnB

[Dave World]

Riiiiiight. Asking for evidence to back up a claim makes me a "science denier". As that is the very essence of science your credibility has just gone down the "S bend".

 

And for proof, you provide some sort of op-ed blog piece? Try reading this thread which covers the most recent IPCC report about extreme events.

 

So how about the Pentagon claim? Or agriculture? Bearing in mind that there is a drought in the US and agriculture will take a hit in a drought.

 

First, as to your thread. Apparently you read the report differently than the people who wrote it intended it to be understood. You quote Roger Pielke on the subject, since you obviously didn't read the report yourself. Pielke is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. He writes a blog. His main affiliation is with the Center for Science and Technology, an arm of the Institute for Defense Analysis. The IDA goes back to WW2 and has a vested interest in continuing warfare. It answers to the Pentagon.

 

Even so, he does admit to anthropomorphic climate change and is on record with this statement. "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible."

 

As for the International Panel on Climate Change, here is their synopsis of the March 2012 report: "Geneva, 28 March 2012 – Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today.

 

"Climate extremes, or even a series of non-extreme events, in combination with social vulnerabilities and exposure to risks can produce climate-related disasters, the IPCC said in its Special Report on

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). "

 

Do not assume that being a top mind precludes someone from writing a blog and/or being an activist. Those who are highly knowledgeable in a field are apt to make their opinions known. Often those opinions are strong and very advanced. For example, Dr. James Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Colombia University. His post graduate work in radiative transfer models lead to our current understanding of Venus's atmosphere.

 

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an advocate for action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

 

Stephen Chu is a Nobel Award winning Physicist who is our current Secretary of Energy. I will spare you a recounting of the bona fides of the others in that short list. Suffice it to say that some of them are prominent economists and one is even a man of some note in the petrochemical private sector.

 

Now to some more documentation pertaining to my assertions. From the Union of Concerned Scientists comes this: "In an era of globalized commodity markets, the devastation of the U.S. corn crop translates into a global grain shortage. But, equally important, the U.S. drought is just one of many extreme weather events around the world this year and their combined "domino" effect could put many at risk of higher food prices, if not a full-on food crisis." [http://blog.ucsusa.o...l-food-crisis/]

Remember, just because it comes from a blog, that doesn't mean that the information is weak.

 

As far as your quotes from the IPCC go, if read correctly you come away with the distilled truth that individual events that are coincident often do not show a provable cause and effect link, but when statistical information shows an overwhelming probability that such a link exists, it must be assumed to be so until there is proof to the contrary.

 

Now, let's get to my military assertion. This is from the New York Times, August 8, 2009: "The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

"Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

The only people who are challenging these assertions are those who have agendas counter to the welfare of the human race. Follow the money trail. It always leads to those who wish to further the interests of fossil fuel proponents, and away from the harvesting of clean, renewable energy sources.

 

Finally, anybody who categorically refers to environmentalists as "whackos" is a science denier. Prove me wrong.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Dave World

[JohnB]

First, as to your thread. Apparently you read the report differently than the people who wrote it intended it to be understood. You quote Roger Pielke on the subject, since you obviously didn't read the report yourself. Pielke is a meteorologist, not a climatologist.

 

Actually it's obvious that you read neither the report or the thread. Pielke wrote the literature that the report was based on.

 

As for the International Panel on Climate Change, here is their synopsis of the March 2012 report: "Geneva, 28 March 2012 Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today.

 

"Climate extremes, or even a series of non-extreme events, in combination with social vulnerabilities and exposure to risks can produce climate-related disasters, the IPCC said in its Special Report on

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). "

 

If you are going to quote somebody, especially a press release or news article then you should provide a link. You provide no proof as is that such comments have actually been made. They probably were, but you should provide a link as proof, otherwise it's just your say so and that carries no weight around here.

 

However, and again, you are going by what a press release says, I'm going by what the person who wrote the papers on which the report is based has said. I somehow think that a person writing in the reviewed literature is more likely to be correct than some AAP reporter.

 

Do not assume that being a top mind precludes someone from writing a blog and/or being an activist. Those who are highly knowledgeable in a field are apt to make their opinions known. Often those opinions are strong and very advanced. For example, Dr. James Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Colombia University. His post graduate work in radiative transfer models lead to our current understanding of Venus's atmosphere.

 

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an advocate for action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

 

Dr Hansen is a borderline looney. Anybody who compares freight trains with the cattle cars heading for Dachau and Treblinka has a couple of kangaroos loose in the top paddock. His model that he used to spread the alarm is hopelessly wrong and as for the testimony back in 1988, that was very carefully stage managed to push a viewpoint and had little to do with any form of truth.

 

Dr Hansen is also regularly wrong on matters of scientific fact as evidenced by his recent article in the NYT. A response by Dr Martin Hoerling of NOAA is here. Further comment from Dr Pat Michaels is here.

 

Dr Michaels states;

Hansen is simply wrong.

 

Hansen claims that global warming is associated with increased drought in the US. This is a testable hypothesis which he chose not to test, and, because PNAS isnt truly peer-reviewed for Members like him, no one tested it for him.

 

I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansens own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.

 

Note especially the reference to PNAS "pal review" that allows Hansen to publish any junk he wants.

 

Now to some more documentation pertaining to my assertions. From the Union of Concerned Scientists comes this: "In an era of globalized commodity markets, the devastation of the U.S. corn crop translates into a global grain shortage. But, equally important, the U.S. drought is just one of many extreme weather events around the world this year and their combined "domino" effect could put many at risk of higher food prices, if not a full-on food crisis." [http://blog.ucsusa.o...l-food-crisis/]

Remember, just because it comes from a blog, that doesn't mean that the information is weak.

 

True, sort of. However the "Union of concerned Scientists" is just a lobby and advocacy group. The only thing required to be a member is a valid credit card. I note that Anthony Watss dog is a current "concerned scientist", being a fully paid up member. I point you back to the statement by Dr Michaels (you know, a climatologist) who said;

I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansens own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.

 

So a climatologist who examined the data (those things called facts) comes to a different conclusion than a lobby group does. As Gomer would say "Surprise, surprise, surprise".

 

As far as your quotes from the IPCC go, if read correctly you come away with the distilled truth that individual events that are coincident often do not show a provable cause and effect link, but when statistical information shows an overwhelming probability that such a link exists, it must be assumed to be so until there is proof to the contrary.

 

No, sorry. You don't get to reverse the scientific process. Claims require proof. If you say there is a link then prove it. It is not up to others to disprove your assumed link. The null hypothesis is that there is no link until one is proven, this is how science works. (Although it's odd that you call me a science denier while needing an education on science itself. It says a lot about you in my books) To illustrate the moral and logical stupidity of th argument put forward we only need to look at a courtroom. If we have statistical evidence that Joe Bloggs committed a crime, then by your argument we should find him guilty and incarcerate him until such time as "there is proof to the contrary". what a fascinating world you live in. Please keep it to yourself as civilised people work on the reverse principle of "innocent until proven guilty". You might prefer the laws and "logic" of the middle ages, but most people have rejected them.

 

Now, let's get to my military assertion. This is from the New York Times, August 8, 2009: "The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

"Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies."

 

The problem with such statements is that they are actually meaningless. All sorts of things could "topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions". From climate change through a flood to a plague of locusts or any other natural disaster you care to think of. Almost anything could have an effect, so don't read more into a statement than is there. Heck a change in American foreign policy or aid money could do all that. Even though we give less being a smaller nation, Australian policies and changes to aid could do the same in some areas.

 

The vital point to remember is that this society, our civilisation is the first to think about the future. Previous societies simply assumed that everything would stay the same, they thought that the climate didn't change, the stories of harsher winters were just grandpa stories (and everybody knows his memory is going). But we know that it does change and it can change very quickly, so it is right and prudent to consider the effect of any climate change on the geopolitical landscape of the planet. But we are much more in danger of trouble if there is cooling, not warming. A warmer world has longer growing seasons and more food, a cooler world has shorter growing seasons and less food that is of a poorer quality.

 

I haven't read the full article over at Dr Currys blog yet, but this appears to be an interesting comparison between the reconstructions of Dr Lamb compared to Dr Mann (of hockeystick fame). It's an effort to take the CET back past the beginning of the instrumental period using documentation from the era involved. There are some interesting quotes. The Rev Schallor in the Prussian Alps said in 1560;

There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earths crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.

 

Cold is bad, warm is good.

 

The only people who are challenging these assertions are those who have agendas counter to the welfare of the human race. Follow the money trail. It always leads to those who wish to further the interests of fossil fuel proponents, and away from the harvesting of clean, renewable energy sources.

 

Wrong in so many ways. Would you accept that the only people backing renewables are those who stand to make money from it? Companies like GE who make turbines and Greenpeace who sell electricity in europe? And if you "follow the money" you'll see that Dr Hansen is making an absolute fortune picking up cash for appearances well above his actual salary. Frankly I'm bored with this bullshit of the oil funded denier machine. The best that you can do is point to exxonwatch or whatever and find a couple of million a year in funding. Exxon donated $20 million over 10 years, big bloody deal. Shell gave the CRU $40 million, Greenpeace has an annual budget of some $500 million worldwide and the WWF is around $800 million. The warming lobby could outspend the oil companies with what falls down the back of the couch. Absolute billions go to the warmers but you think that a couple of million is some sort of crime for the opposition. For crying out loud, even black hole formation is now linked to "Global Warming" (put those words into the proposal and watch the money roll in). Your side complains that they Heartland Institute has $80,000 to spend in a year while Dr Mann gets $2million in grants to study disease vectors in mosquitoes in a warming world. And he's a bloody dendrochronologist and has nothing to do with either insects or diseases. It's just insane.

 

So unless you are going to open your eyes and stop emulating a cyclops as to where the money is coming from and going to, then your argument is pointless.

 

Finally, anybody who categorically refers to environmentalists as "whackos" is a science denier. Prove me wrong.

 

I didn't actually call all environmentalists whackos, but some certainly are. Your argument is also flawed in that it assumes that environmentalists use science as a reason for thier stance. This is not correct;

 

It doesnt matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

 

But let's look at some of the reasonable and sensible comments from some environmentalists;

 

Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?- Maurice Strong. Behind the formation of the IPCC.

 

What a wonderful future he's got in mind for us poor plebs. Probably slightly better than his friends envisage for the darker skinned peoples of this planet;

 

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."- Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist. Funny how it's always the dark people who have to remain in poverty and misery isn't it?

 

Of course some would like the West to join the Third World;

"The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization...Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine." - Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist.

 

So are these people sane and reasonable or whackos? I think the majority vote would be the latter.

 

But you actually think it's about the environment, why not listen to what the people involved have said;

 

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." - Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official

 

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose." - The Club of Rome.

 

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - Daniel Botkin

 

No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

 

Weve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. - Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator

 

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." - Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat

 

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." - David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

 

"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance - Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S

 

Honestly, this is easier than dynamiting fish in a barrel. I happen to think that people mean pretty much what they say, so if people say that they will use anything to accomplish their political objectives I think they will do just that. The tentative findings of some scientists have been used for political purposes by those with axes to grind or targets to achieve. To think otherwise is to think that all those who said that this is exactly what they are out to do are lying and that makes no sense at all. But you can find plenty more "interesting" quotes by very influential people here.

 

Pay special attention to the quote from H.L.Menken;

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

 

Compare that to the current day where we are threatened with global calamity or some such that will bring disasters of biblical proportions, but if we listen to certain people and give them power and do as we are told, then we will be alright. But we have to grant them absolute power mind you, "Democracy" just isn't up to the task, outmoded concept that it is.

 

"Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task." - David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports (If that doesn't scare you then nothing will)

 

I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while. - James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept (Although he is now in my camp and not the warmers)

 

And some final thoughts from the leaders of the environmental cause (and the perennially wrong and quite insane Paul Ehrlich)

 

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. - Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University

 

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal

 

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal

 

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal. - Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer

 

My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world. - David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

 

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

 

"The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery". - Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University

 

"Third world nations are producing too many children too fast...it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth..." - Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer (Yes, if only those sick and poor dark people would stop having sick and poor children, there would be more to go around big Al and his ilk) Frankly for that comment alone, I wouldn't p*ss on him if he was on fire.

 

These guys are whackos, I've proved you wrong. Either that or you agree with their racist and genocidal ideas, which makes you a very dangerous person. You can never tell when someone will move from "population reduction as a concept" to "population reduction by bullet".

 

I'll finish with the same thing I tell everyone else who comes on strong about overuse of resources, etc. Go find a nice tall cliff and jump off. By reducing the overconsuming West by one person you will free up resources that will allow nearly 30 third worlders to live. But it's so much easier to sit in air conditioning using a computer to tell the rest of the world how to live, isn't it? Yes, the world would be soooo much better if we stupid people would only listen to the universal wisdom of the self proclaimed gurus of the environment.

 

Give me a break.

Edited August 16, 2012 by JohnB

[Dave World]

Just a tidbit here for your edification.

My link

[JohnB]

That's it? The military is trying to reduce costs and supply line problems?

 

Do you think that this is news? The military has always tried new things. If it works better or causes less supply headaches, they do it. If you are unaware of this fact then you know far less than the average roman legionairre, because they were all aware of the problem.

 

So they're trying some "Green" things, cool. Big whoop. Better insulation to reduce heating/cooling energy required is only sensible and vegetable oil for engines has been around since World War 1. Oh that's right, you lot were late for that one, never mind the rest of the world knew about and used substitutes for petrol. It's not your fault you're slow and are only working out what everybody else knew 100 years ago.

 

This doesn't in any way negate any point I made, or do your preconceptions have trouble when they meet reality?