Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread (Read 438019 times)

Ptolemy · « **Reply #1975 on:** March 15, 2016, 08:23:32 PM »

Quote from: memphis on March 15, 2016, 05:54:42 PM

Seems high, but maybe so.

I've seen that number in one of the refuting studies.

These numbers are not wrong though...

CO2 is about 0.038% of the composition of the planet's atmosphere. Most is Nitrogen and Oxygen. Man's contribution to that is 3%, so man's contribution to the warming of the atmosphere is only 0.00114% of the total atmosphere.

It's nothing to worry about.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #1976 on:** March 15, 2016, 08:24:23 PM »

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1977 on:** March 15, 2016, 09:12:14 PM »

Quote from: slobber on March 15, 2016, 06:22:04 PM

Quote from: catastrophe on March 15, 2016, 03:51:32 PM
The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.
This is a very strange argument. There is little logic in this, and I doubt I am the first person to point that out.

Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

It's incredibly stupid, no doubt

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1978 on:** March 15, 2016, 09:14:11 PM »

Quote from: bucket on March 15, 2016, 07:13:53 PM

That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.

Isn't that the guy b.o. wanted to nominate to the scotus?

bucket · « **Reply #1979 on:** March 15, 2016, 09:15:02 PM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2016, 09:14:11 PM

Quote from: bucket on March 15, 2016, 07:13:53 PM
That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.

Isn't that the guy b.o. wanted to nominate to the scotus?

Ya

ednksu · « **Reply #1980 on:** March 16, 2016, 04:32:11 AM »

Quote from: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 08:23:32 PM

Quote from: memphis on March 15, 2016, 05:54:42 PM
Seems high, but maybe so.

I've seen that number in one of the refuting studies.

These numbers are not wrong though...

CO2 is about 0.038% of the composition of the planet's atmosphere. Most is Nitrogen and Oxygen. Man's contribution to that is 3%, so man's contribution to the warming of the atmosphere is only 0.00114% of the total atmosphere.

It's nothing to worry about.

Argues for closed system, doesn't understand carbon sinks, or balanced systems.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1981 on:** March 16, 2016, 08:21:01 AM »

The comment on radon gas was my favorite. The very air we breathe!

catastrophe · « **Reply #1982 on:** March 16, 2016, 10:20:42 AM »

What crazy reasoning. It's like saying "if the car dealership is going to buy my car for $10,000 and then turn around and sell it to someone for $15,000 then it's like I'm an employee of the dealership. That's not right."

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #1983 on:** March 16, 2016, 10:26:40 AM »

Coal is cheaper than solar by a large factor, no arguing that. Renewable energy comes at a substantial cost, and poors bear a disproportionate share of that cost. There's no arguing this point. It's math.

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #1984 on:** March 16, 2016, 10:33:17 AM »

Quote from: memphis on March 16, 2016, 10:06:06 AM

“If they start giving us only 2.8 cents a kilowatt versus the 13 cents they charge us, I will never break even on my investment,” Matz said. “Not only that, if they are going to give us 2.8 cents a kilowatt and then sell it for 13 cents, basically 17,000 Nevada homeowners built a solar farm for Nevada power. I don’t think that can be right.”

Just read that Nevada article, wow boss move by a monopoly.

Maybe they should have picked a percentage above the wholesale price to compensate the solar owners. It certainly wasn't fair that the utility was paying full retail for the energy when they are regulated by the state PUC and unable to recoup that cost. That's forcing them to fully subsidize a technology that isn't ready for individual consumer use.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1985 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:19:51 AM »

Looks like more growth for the energy poverty numbers . . . for the dumb, that's households that surpass a certain % of their household's monthly income in order to pay their energy bills every month. California has one of the highest, if not the highest levels of people in energy poverty in the United States.

Good to see companies with market caps of a half a trillion reap so much government largesse.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/

bucket · « **Reply #1986 on:** April 07, 2016, 07:50:47 PM »

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1987 on:** April 07, 2016, 09:58:28 PM »

It still isn't anywhere close, and as the article I posted said, it's still horribly inefficient.

wetwillie · « **Reply #1988 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:04:02 PM »

that article might as well have been a paid advertisement it was so bad.

sys · « **Reply #1989 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:26:46 PM »

Quote from: bucket on April 07, 2016, 07:50:47 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels

good article, thanks for posting.

sys · « **Reply #1990 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:27:59 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 09:58:28 PM

It still isn't anywhere close, and as the article I posted said, it's still horribly inefficient.

different technology, sodj. the one bucket posted is the one that is crushing the one you posted.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1991 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:44:26 PM »

Quote from: sys on April 07, 2016, 10:27:59 PM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 09:58:28 PM
It still isn't anywhere close, and as the article I posted said, it's still horribly inefficient.

different technology, sodj. the one bucket posted is the one that is crushing the one you posted.

Thanks Capt Obvious on the different technology, and I guess you didn't get the part about how the massive gov't subsidized solar fields needed copious amounts of carbon based energy just to get primed to start producing power and the cost of that power is driving energy poverty in places like California. So their taxes are subsidizing inefficient energy production that they pay higher prices for.

sys · « **Reply #1992 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:51:05 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 10:44:26 PM

Thanks Capt Obvious on the different technology, and I guess you didn't get the part about how the massive gov't subsidized solar fields needed copious amounts of carbon based energy just to get primed to start producing power and the cost of that power is driving energy poverty in places like California. So their taxes are subsidizing inefficient energy production that they pay higher prices for.

you're the one that referenced your article in response to bucket's. and you're still doing it!

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1993 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:52:19 PM »

So what? Weird posts sys, just weird.

sys · « **Reply #1994 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:54:30 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 10:52:19 PM

So what? Weird posts sys, just weird.

so i extended you the benefit of the doubt (really pretended to give you the benefit of the doubt, since i know you better than to actually not doubt you) that you were confused rather than disingenuous.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1995 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:56:52 PM »

You're making no sense, what does the "crushing" comment even mean? That gov't is subsidizing inefficient "clean" energy production more then legacy energy production? If so, another captain obvious point.

sys · « **Reply #1996 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:58:59 PM »

maybe you actually are confused.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1997 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:59:46 PM »

Okay Captain Cryptic

sys · « **Reply #1998 on:** April 07, 2016, 11:04:28 PM »

what crypsis? good grief, sodj, i could not possibly be any more plain-spoken.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1999 on:** April 07, 2016, 11:18:18 PM »

So inefficient green energy production is "crushing" fossil fuels? That's where I started to tune out that idiotic article.

Lol, it couldn't be that the world is awash in oil, and the market has realized that so called "peak oil" is now not even on the distant radar screen?