“If you want to start slaying Sky Dragons, can the out date budgets and start at the elusive ERL and make sure everyone knows why.”
Well said capt.
More damage has been done by the lame analogies with greenhouses
and lame explanations of DWLR.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nickels
Mass democracy leads to socialism leads to communism. Every critique of modern democracy saw it.
The Klein example above is glaring.
Cory Booker routinely posts PostMarxist/Commie authors.
Obamacare:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/obamacare_is_communism.html
The list is endless. The Post Marxist left has invested tremendous effort in hiding the evil history of Communism, which is exactly why the ignorant left courts is so dangerously.
Not that the republicans are that much different.
Gottfried. I’m too tired and demoralized to argue or educate much beyond that.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by David Wojick
Dave, I hate to lay a 700 page doc on you but your best bet is the EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis:
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule-ria.pdf.
About 2.3 eons ago I helped create the Federal RIA requirements. EPA tends to hide their smoking nonsense guns in footnotes. Enjoy.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by David Rutledge
David,
Ugh. I surrender. I had been looking through the Clean Power Plan documentation for the residential price information without success.
Dave
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Arch Stanton
Sometimes you sound like a nut…
sometimes you don’t.
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Bad Andrew
“exploiting… to advance an agenda”
Yes, Global Warming scare stories fit into this as well.
Thanks, Joshie.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher
HS
‘3. SM, who as usual is all over the place, but today claims slowing of cooling = warming. Ah nooo, warming = INCREASED temperature/frequency/quantum energy of a blackbody,”
more semantics.
I put coffee in my thermos this morning. it was 200F when it went in
Because I own a Zojirushi seven hours later it was 142 F
It stays warmer than it would be otherwise because heat loss via radiation is minimized.
The coffee is WARMER THAN it would be otherwise.
That is all that is meant by global warming. WARMER THAN it would be otherwise.
The planet isnt warmed by GHGs or DWLR… It is warmed by the sun
and kept warmer than it would be otherwise by GHGs.
So, you’ve fallen for semantics rather than physics.
If you want to be warmer put on a hat
this blanket keeps me warm
you’ll be warmer if you put socks and gloves on.
These things keep you warm, but they dont warm you.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by popesclimatetheory
While it is also true that the less wealthy, less healthy, countries are also the warmer ones. We don’t know why. It just is.
in many warmer countries, you can live off the land, year round.
in colder countries, you must work harder in the warm times to get enough to make it through the cold times. working harder often helps to make you healthy and wealthy.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by David Rutledge
David,
Bingo. Table 17 on page 1379 of the EPA Rule, mass-based approach. Supposedly the Clean Power Plan will have NO EFFECT (0% change) on retail prices in 2030.
From the table, it appears that this happens because of the assumption that natural gas and coal prices will be lower in 2030 than now. It is a fool’s game to predict fossil-fuel prices in 2030. Or even in 2020.
Junk science all the way down.
Dave
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by popesclimatetheory
it was the invention of the air conditioner that enabled hot nations to compete on an equal footing for the first time with the cooler countries.
First, it was low cost energy that allowed a lot of people to use the air conditioners.
Now, they want to take away the low cost energy from those of us who still have it, and prevent those who don’t have it now to ever even hope to get low cost energy.
They also want to take away the CO2 that grows the green stuff that helps keep us all alive. They do want to reduce the population of earth.
Low cost energy is the key to a good future. It helps us grow and supply food to more people than ever believed possible. It helps us stay cool in hot times and it helps us stay warm in cold times. It helps us move, if we need to.
Temperature and Sea Level are inside the outer bounds of the past ten thousand years and it is not headed out. Look at actual data, not flawed model output.
Low cost energy is the key to a good future.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nickels
Thx for link. I like this Welch character.
Unfortunately mass democracy always votes in socialism.
And then the government mind control….hundreds of times worse than religious thought control, so much less tolerant.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by jim2
Also, Tony, I’ve had some close Iranian friends here in the US. The general population was highly Westernized at one point. I don’t know how much that has changed, but in any case, we are having to deal with a leadership that hates us. Tough nut, but that’s where we are.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
I <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/09/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-7/#comment-723799" rel="nofollow">said</a> he was a skydragon. Arguing with skydragons is a waste of time. They live in their own reality, with their own fantasy fisicks, and cherry-pick and re-interpret all the "authorities" to support their own delusions.
Hm... Sort of reminds me of CAGW alarmists. Of course, they've got their own fantasy economics to go with it. But then, the "science" of economics is like the "science" of astrology. Except that politicians can get away with listening to economists. If they listen to astrologers, they <strike>don't </strike>can't afford to admit it.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by AK
<blockquote>“I’m very sorry for what happened,” said David Ostrander, EPA's emergency response director, at a public meeting in Durango held just hours after the plume reached town. “This is a huge tragedy. We typically respond to emergencies, not cause them.”</blockquote>Actually, they “<i>cause</i>” quite a few emergencies. It's just that usually it's their dictatorial, poorly-thought-out, and spottily-enforced regulations that are responsible. The actual "polluter" is typically a company that couldn't follow their maze of self-contradictory regulations, or a company that should never have been in business but gets/got away with ignoring the regulations because those that make a good-faith effort to follow them spend too much money jumping through needless hoops.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by climatereason
jim2
Of course I realise that Trump has built a business empire but that doesn’t make him a nice human being or able to deal with all the sorts of people that a politician needs to, in that regard I would put him in the same category as Robert Maxwell. I simply cant see him as President. However, at least the Republican party had a tv debate brimming over with eager candidates.
Apart from Hillary Clinton, who I think is getting weaker by the day and surely cant survive the astonishing private server business , I don’t see who the strong Democrat candidates are going to be. Perhaps JImd could enlighten us on that?
Illegal immigration is a problem all over the Western World and our leaders have been incredibly weak in dealing with it
tonyb
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
Planning Engineer: Air is much more likely to be a complete exposure pathway than water. That is the most important factor in risk assessment.
All these spills into water are bad for the environment and great fodder for superficial debate, but people generally don’t end up consuming the pollution. If you are concerned about water exposure, look into THMs.
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Michael
There is some serious delusion on this sub-thread.
To see how good the deal is you just need to go back to the start of the process in 2009, where, under Ahmadinejad, Iran was arguing its ‘sovereign right’ to nuclear power as non-negotiable.
The current deal represents a significant back-down from Iran.
Any one with an ounce of sense will see this as the victory it is and be grateful. Some aren’t happy with just this and seem to need some kind of ritual humiliation as part of the deal.
Then there are the extremists – they’ll never accept any kind of deal and have their hearts set on war.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Tom Peel
John, it’s interesting that you quoted a paper from the EPH website concerning cold-related deaths but omitted to mention that on the very same website you can find a paper concerning heat-related deaths.
The real question is not about cold=bad/heat=good or vice versa, but rather, what is the overall effect of a shift of climate in direction of higher temperatures? The answer appears to be that increasing temperatures will lead to an increase in the mortality rate. The reason is that the mortality rate at high temperatures increases more steeply per °C rise than the the mortality rate at low temperatures decreases per °C rise. If you are interested I can post some calculations.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by jim2
It says cold kills more than hot weather. Not too difficult to understand. Anyway, beside the real point which is cheap energy can prevent deaths due to hot and cold.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
