Looks like in the intervening years, some have been where the final House appropriations were significantly below the President’s request. Not sure that there is a justifiable identification of a trend associated with Republican control of Congress. Do you see one?
Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by aplanningengineer
Thainks HaroldW – the Google link worked and I’m god I was able to read the piece.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by aplanningengineer
Glad not God- what a spell check
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Mark Silbert
Was that all skeptics or 1 skeptic? What % of skeptics denied you their code/data.
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by Peter Lang
gweberbv
Renewable Energy Magazine says:
“German electricity exports still more valuable than imports”
Well they would say that wouldn’t they.
That’s just spin. It’s cherry picking. It’s nonsense. You should know enough to know how to do properly comparable full cost comparisons.
I am certainly not going to waste my time digging up the full, properly attributable costs of Germany’s renewable energy and the costs to the neighbours who have to modify their grids to handle the power volatility and disruptions. What we do know for sure is there’d be no solar or wind with out massive subsidies, we also know that Germany’s electricity is the highest cost in Europe.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Curious George
My own experience with fanatics (as opposed to Jim D’s term denialists): I found an issue with a CAM 5.1 climate model, which yields its predictions unreliable after 80 hours – I asked them to provide a better estimate, but they never did. They did nothing to correct the problem for two years; I don’t care any more. http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma? by FMB
I see a lot of posts in this thread that complain about the lack of balance in the hearings.
But I’m wonder where these same people were when Democrats loaded the debate with warmists?
The truth is that both sides need a fair and unbiased hearing. While I think the warmists are wrong, I don’t fear their commentary. But I am puzzled why they fear commentary that is opposed to theirs even when their predictions are based on incomplete and there fore inaccurate computer models that are programmed with their assumptions for the future and have no bases in fact or observations (Satellite data shows no warming but manipulated ground sources show significant warming.
So who are we to believe, the raw data or the manipulated data when the people who manipulated the data refuse to say how or why they manipulated it.
Scientific data is supposed to be available for others to verify the findings. But if raw government data is not available to all scientists, then how can it be verified? Or if manipulated data is not availble to the entire community with how and why the data was manipulated, then how can we trust it.
The fact is that warmist have been in lock step in preventing anyone from evaluating their methodologies or how they arrived at their conclusions, or the raw data they used.
On the other hand, go to any skeptic website and you will find exactly the data and methodology they use.
So why are warmist hiding their data, methodologies, and computer programming assumptions and the skeptics are not?
Do alarmist have something hide and skeptics don’t. Sure seems like it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Curious George
The difference between a justice and a social justice is the same as a difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Curious George
Have you ever seen “Shakespeare” spelled in Russian?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by mosomoso
Pity about the KiOR collapse. Now they’ll have to go back to wasting food instead of wasting wood.
On a brighter note, American wood is still being wasted to generate electricity in England.
Here’s an idea. In future, if anyone uses the words “startup” and “green” in the same sentence…just put a nappy on them and stick a pacifier in their mouth.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by mosomoso
I like to get in early and dismiss climate papers immediately. You skip the five year wait and don’t have to read any of the tripe.
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by Peter Lang
Peter Davies,
It’s become clear to me you do not understand much about energy and your comments frequently show signs of intellectual dishonesty. Also, it seems you rely for a great deal of your beliefs on reading junk sources. It seems you what they say if it supports your belief, but you don’t have sufficient background or understanding of the subject to be able to do your own reality checks. Furthermore, your comments frequently misrepresent what others say and are disingenuous. So, I don’t believe you have much to offer on energy matters – you just have your beliefs, and that’s no help.
You said:
Starting with the J P Morgan report, even Rud Istvan doesn’t rate them as serious energy analysts. It’s really difficult to take them seriously when they say things like :
“..energy storage of new renewables (wind and solar) would only partly mitigate the need for and use of backup thermal power, since the surpluses are smaller than the deficits.”
Rud said the J P Morgan report understates the cost of renewables. I agree. I suspect they’ve understated the costs and technical difficulties to try to get those renewable advocates who are intelligent and honest to think about the points. Reports have to be written to suit the target audience. That’s standard in any effective communication. In this case he’s pulled punches on explaining the whole truth about how enormously costly renewable is and would become if penetration increases towards the target 80%. Comparing Germany and France, the cost per tonne GHG emissions avoided is much higher with renewables than with mostly nuclear even at current highly inflated costs for nuclear power (which is a direct result of the anti-nuke protesters – read the link I gave on this before blurting out another uninformed comment). It is a good report and much better then the nonsense you keep posting. You are certainly not a serious energy analyst and not even competent to critique anything.
The quote is absolutely correct in context. The quote you lifted out of context follows from the figures explaining that “the surpluses are smaller than the deficits”.
Quoting out of context as you do, seemingly to mislead other readers, is a sign of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
I am not impressed by your comments. IMO, you have little of value to offer.
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by catweazle666
Peter Davies: “What it boils down to is that if you want to make renewables look poor by cheating it is very easy”
Why bother?
For all your prolixity, ‘unreliables’ are quite capable of looking poor by themselves.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
<a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/sensitivity-to-cumulative-emissions/#comment-68514" rel="nofollow">Steven Mosher recently published this list</a>
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
Two Comments:
1). The 2 degree Celsius link I fail to see the concern when the daytime highest temp and night-time lowest-temp difference exceeds 5 degrees Celsius or more in many place. People live with that daily temp change regularly. We all adapt to it.
2) Universities being leftist bastions. Essentially, the American Land-Grant Flagship universities mimic the french system. In France, the top institution of higher ed is ‘Le’cole Plytechnique’ which graduates the top scientists, engineers and business leaders that run the country in a timely manner. The remainder of the ‘universite’s’ graduate people who take ten years to ern a degree and can;t find a decent job. On American Land-Grant campuses, department and colleges of science, engineering and busieness represent L’cole Polytechnique’ and the colleges of Liberal Arts represent the universite.’ It’s been that way for 50 years t least.
George Devries Klein, PhD,PG, FGSA
↧
Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by opluso
David Wojick:
The question is, if paywalls are outlawed who will pay the cost of publication, which runs to billions of dollars a year?
You’ve changed the stated proposition from public access for publicly funded research to “banning paywalls.” Not the same thing.
Do you want to nationalize the scientific journal industry? Who pays?
At this point I’m wondering if perhaps someone has hijacked your wordpress account?
In the US, every research project has to file a final technical report. Some agencies publish these, others do not. All should and that would solve the problem.
This sounds like we actually do have common ground, despite your earlier objections and your false conclusion (it would not, IMO, solve the problem).
Referring to your linked article, my experience with OSTI (and other government sources) has been much more disappointing than you implied might be the case. You admit there can be long delays in publishing any information at all and I find there is often nothing more than a reference that the research took place. In many other cases I’ve found, the published “work” is an incomplete synopsis of a multi-part, multi-year research effort and appears more like bureaucratic box-checking than an effort to convey publicly owned information. Meanwhile, the full publicly funded research is being given away to profit-seeking science journals.
I would simply turn your argument around and ask why the taxpayer should continue to subsidize a multi-billion dollar scientific publishing industry? If a federal grant produced the work product, the public has a right to it without having to pay a third party for the privilege.
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by Peter Lang
Peter Davies,
That is another sign of your ignorance of the subject. What you have quotes and said leads to higher electricity prices over all not lower. The back up generators still have to be maintained, but at higher cost (more intermittent and higher cycling costs) but selling lass electricity. They have to charge higher cost per MWh sold to cover their fixed costs. This has to be passed on in higher electricity prices.
Sorry mate, you need to do less presenting of your beliefs and instead do objective research. Do reality checks with properly comparable costed and options analyses. The J P Morgan provides a good outline for you to follow.
And here’s one of mine: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf
There are also calculators you can use; here are some (all Australian):
http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios
All of these show that the cost of electricity from renewables and CO2 abatement cost is a higher than with nuclear, even in Australia.
Each of these calculators uses LCOE of the generators only. You need to add the additional grid costs to each.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by cerescokid
Seeing ones belief system tank manifests itself in a variety of perverse behavior. Speaking in tongues appears to be one.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Curious George
University professors: Prof. Lewandowsky, Prof. Mann, Prof. Ehrlich. Also Prof. Haeckel, but here we step on an undesirable-left territory.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by stevenreincarnated
“Jim D | December 5, 2015 at 10:53 am |
You might call the rival theories less well developed, when I would call them easily debunkable.”
Jim, you forgot to click your heels. That’s why it didn’t work.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
