Arctic Ice Returns To Normal; How Will Global Warming Alarmist Fearmonger Next?

We could start a betting pool as to how the global warming alarmists will next pursue their ‘Chicken Little’ thesis next:

Global Cooling Confirmed? Arctic Ice Returns to Normal
Posted by: Mike’s America
April 1, 2010

The latest nail in the global warming coffin!

Remember all that alarmist nonsense about the Arctic melting with the consequences of the Polar Bears dying and the planet flooding? The alarmists pointed to thinning Arctic ice as proof the planet was warming and that we must listen to their dire predictions and raise the cost of everyone’s energy (as if that would do anything to slow warming).

Well, don’t worry. Looks like Mother Nature has stepped in once again and put things right. The latest chart from the National Snow and Ice Data Center makes it clear:


Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts post additional measurements from The Danish Meteorological Institute, the Norwegians and advanced satellite instruments which all show the same thing.

How long will it be before global warming alarmists who used thinning ice as proof of global warming declare that the increase in ice is also proof of warming? And will those reporters who moaned about an “ice free Arctic” report this news?

I gave up ever hoping to reason with the “blame man for global warming” crowd when I heard that this winter was so damn cold because the planet was actually so damn hot.

I’ve also long-since given up on the mainstream media ever being fair or honest in their reporting.

Sorry to link the global warming hogwash with the ObamaCare hogwash, but I can’t help but point and laugh as I see all the crappy leftist global warming demagoguery over the last twenty years turning to dust now even as we get ObamaCare rammed down our throats via a wave of crappy leftist health care demagoguery.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

17 Responses to “Arctic Ice Returns To Normal; How Will Global Warming Alarmist Fearmonger Next?”

  1. HL Says:

    Dear Michael,
    Blessed Resurrection Day to you and your family! I am more grateful then ever that we belong to our Lord Jesus and my eternal citizenship is in heaven!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I think that’s why God allows us to experience hard times. And in the very hardest of times in this world, we should take joy in the fact that God the Father gave us an “out of this world” through His Son. We are citizens of heaven; the United States – as much as we love it – is not going to make it to heaven. This isn’t our ultimate home. That eternal perspective keeps us from worrying, or hating, overly much.

    Today is Good Friday, the day that Christ took our sins upon Him and bore them on the cross. He died in our place to pay the just penalty for sin so that we would not need to suffer eternal death in paying for those sins ourselves. And when He rose bodily from the dead, He gave us the choice to rise to new life with Him. When we stand before the gates of heaven, we realize that we have done nothing to earn our way inside. Rather, Jesus takes us by the shoulder and says, “This one’s with Me.” And the gates swing open!

    May you also have a Happy Easter, HL. HE IS RISEN INDEED!

  3. Margarett Says:

    Dear Friends, Happy Easter!

  4. Robert Says:

    The past summer sure has been pretty hot.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    The past winter was the coldest for the past 100 years.

  6. Robert Says:

    Yeah, the past winter was pretty cold. Hard to say what’s what. I wouldn’t put my hand in the fire for either camp.
    I guess we just have to wait and see who is right. Talk to you in 30 yrs.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    The bottom line is this: we have every reason to distrust the science of “global warming.”

    We go back to the 1970s when NASA scientist James Hansen said we were going to experience global cooling and an ice age. Then THAT SAME GUY leads the effort to say we’re going to have the exact opposite thing from what he’d said before.

    And, of course, the Climategate emails reveal that the leading scientists screeching about this movement were demagogues and frauds who cooked their numbers and manipulated their data.

    So we can shove the hockey stick graph right up their pseudo-scientific backsides. [Good accumulation of links on the bogus fraud that used to be called “science.”].

  8. Robert Says:

    It’s probably pretty complicated to predict what is going to happen in the future with respect to climates. Just look at short and medium term weather forecasts. That seems to be notoriously difficult and given the incentive from farming and shipping and so on one cannot say it hasn’t been tried seriously for centuries.

    On the other hand, man-made pollution of the atmosphere is well established. Just think of background radiation from nuclear testing, CFC’s and ozone depletion or toxic lead from leaded gasoline.

    And then again, I’m sure scientists have other incentives besides being completely honest (just like anybody else) so they would probably push an agenda that will ensure their funding and stature.

    Like I said, I’m not 100% sure of either side. The question we would have to ask ourselves is: is it worth the risk? What certainty do we need to keep on going like we have been? 75% chance on no global warming? 90%? 95%?

    You seem to be very sure it’s all a hoax, but I don’t think that scientists flipflopping their outlook or emails that aim to discredit opponents constitute near certainty that everything else is a lie too. Luckily it’s not my call to make because in this case being wrong would be pretty bad.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, a few things.

    Let me first say that there is increasing evidence that there is no significant link between CO2 and global warming. One of the reasons for this is that the planet appears to have a mechanism to vent away the carbon dioxide that humans are creating. Research published in the August 2007 American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters online edition by Roy Spencer confirmed the existence of a tropical climatic heat vent. This “natural thermostat,” which global climate models do not take into account, could single-handedly render much of the alarm over global warming moot. (also see “Natural ‘Heat Vent’ in Pacific Cloud Cover Could Diminish Greenhouse Warming,” Press Release, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 28 Feb 2001).

    Further, the “scary things” that global warming alarmists are pointing at have been happening in cycles throughout earth’s history.

    I’ve got a couple of articles that I wrote based on the incredibly powerful book, “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years.”

    What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

    What You Never Hear About Global Warming

    That said, let me make the following points:

    #1) You’re no longer acting based on science, but based on fear. You’re retreating to a “The sky COULD be falling scenario.”

    #2) To “fix” the world so we save ourselves from global warming would be so incredibly expensive, and require such a massive degradation of our standard of life, that most Americans aren’t willing to pay the dozens of TRILLIONS of dollars to pay the tab. For what amounts to a chicken little scenario.

    #3) There is no reason to believe that we can do anything to actually “save the world” even if we do all the things the “experts” say we have to do.

    #4) From the first Kyoto Treaty during the Clinton Years, when ALL ONE HUNDRED US SENATORS REFUSED TO RATIFY IT, the “global warming” boondoggle has been nothing more than a socialist redistributionist program from the start. The worst polluters, such as China, Russia, and India, don’t get forced to destroy THEIR economies to save the planet. Far from it; they get to keep building 2 coal factories a week.

    So I can’t help but laugh at your thesis. Sorry, but I can’t. Not when “the science” has been so overwhelmingly been undermined by hoaxes, fraud, and misrepresentation, etc. And not when I’m told, “You have to radically degrade your life because what proven frauds have said could possibly happen.”

    I’m going to put an article in its entirety here. It’s a great article, because it puts the basic facts in easy-to-understand terms. What you will see is that, basically, the powers-at-be decided to ONLY look at the global warming gasses that they could control. And in fact that they can only “reduce” a tiny fraction even of THOSE gasses.

    An inconvenient truth: SOS from Al Gore
    BY PATRICK BEDARD, September 2006

    He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

    Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

    You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

    “Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

    This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

    Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

    This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

    Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

    The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

    Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

    The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

    Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

    “Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

    Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

    The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

    Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

    Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

    They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

    When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

    If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

    In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

  10. Robert Says:

    Well, we can argue back and forth but I don’t think you get my point. Sure, you can quote some guys modelling and there are probably dozens of other papers out that result in all kind of different scenarios. You will probably only pick the papers that support your own point of view and the other side will do the same. Big deal. I have not spend time collecting and analyzing raw data and I bet you haven’t either so the raw truth remains hidden and all you get to see is “massaged” data. Some may be truthfull and some may be biased or plain stupid. I haven’t met or seen any climate scientist I would place my trust in, so I’m not willing to pick a side.

    You do have a distorted view of the checks and balances, though. It’s not going to cost tens of trillions of dollars to get more energy efficient. Of all western countries, Germany is the most energy efficient with CO2 levels back to 1990 levels and their economy is booming. By your account they should be bankrupt. Most of the initial costs can be earned back pretty quickly by reduced energy costs and higher competitive edge. And in case you have forgotten; we had a short period of $140 oil and at the time it really seemed the sky was falling.
    Anyway, the future is probably going to bring a lot more competition for energy. The price of oil will keep rising, so it might not be terribly stupid to try and run things a little more efficiently. By the way, I read that China is already actively doing just that.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    First of all, great job dismissing the evidence I present on the basis of your demagoguery of me. I have a feeling I’m going to be blocking you very soon because I actively despise people who dismiss facts with a contemptuous wave of their hands. I suppose I could treat YOU the same way and figure that since you have a point of view, whatever you say should simply be dismissed. I could say, “Big deal. Somebody else could say the opposite of what you say. So there’s clearly no reason to waste time considering in your position.” Then, on top of that, you basically cite your own ignorance as an argument against me, that since you’re ignorant and know nothing, whatever I know shouldn’t matter. You think you’re the open-minded guy in this discussion when you’re the most close-minded of all.

    The US has reduced its emissions massively:

    In 2009, total energy consumption in the United States fell by almost five percent relative to 2008 and by almost seven percent relative to 2007. With this drop, last year’s U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption fell by an estimated seven percent relative to 2008.

    And I suggest you move to Germany. If I want Germany, that’s certainly where I will go.

    That said, your global warming buddies say 1990 levels aren’t anywhere NEAR good enough. They say we need to reduce our emissions by more than 85% BELOW1990 levels. So your talk about Germany is nothing but fartgas. And fartgas, for the record, increases CO2.

    Here’s what the global warming loons said it would cost:

    Exactly how much do they eventually want to squeeze out of the already battered and bruised taxpayer?

    The IPCC’s own figures state that it would cost about $100 trillion to avert 1 degree Celsius of global warming through reducing CO2 emissions, even if you believe that man-made climate change is a reality.

    $100 trillion dollars – that’s around $333,000 thousand dollars for every living American. Even if you apply it to every living person on the planet, it’s still around $16,000 thousand dollars each. Doesn’t sound like that would be an “unnoticed” amount does it? I would certainly notice if $16,000 left my bank account as an indulgence tax payment for my “sin” of contributing to global warming.

    So you’re just WRONG. They say we either need to dramatically undermine our economy – while sending trillions to the third world, who get to keep pumping out emissions – or that we’re doomed anyway. And if we’re doomed anyway, I want to go out in style.

    Now, you make your $333,000 check payable to me, and I’ll be sure to forward it to the proper authorities. In fact, please to pay my share and send $666,000. Because that’s a nice “mark of the beast” number. And it seems appropriate.

    Germany’s economy is hardly “booming.” But to the extent that it IS “booming,” it is only in the sense that they’re recovering from their horrible recession better than many other countries, in relation to what they were before.

    You want to know why Germany is “booming” now? Because they didn’t do a giant godawful stimulus like we did. Go here for more on that.

    Allow me to quote:

    BERLIN, March 25 — The president of the European Union on Wednesday ripped the Obama administration’s economic policies, calling its deficit spending and bank bailouts “a road to hell.”

    I’m going to submit to you that my theory for why Germany is doing better than us is a lot better than your theory that our path to prosperity is to spend $800,000 per job subsidizing “green jobs.” And since you mention China, we can see who’s benefiting the most from Obama’s “green jobs” program, too.

    And, by the way. China’s energy usage is so huge that it is on pace spew out as much CO2 as the rest of the world combined in just twenty more years. So pardon me for laughing hysterically at your description of “green China.”

    My position isn’t extreme or irrational at all. My position is that if and when the science becomes clear, and if and when the world body ever accepts that there is sufficient crisis that EVERY COUNTRY on earth dramatically cut back on their emissions, then I will get behind it. Your position, besides retreating behind your own ignorance, is that we should wipe out our economy with massive reductions in our economic output during a time of recession because of a theory that has been proven to be utterly contaminated with all kinds of bogus pseudo-science.

  12. Robert Says:

    As I said before, I’m not a global warming proponent. I have not seen or heard any reasonable discussion on the subject and both sides ignore valid points from the other side or misrepresent data. This is especially true for all the bullshit artists I’ve seen in congress.

    As far as Spencer is concerned, I agree with him that nobody has a solid model for climates. And his heat vent paper is interesting but only applies to short-term heat circulation although he suggests that it may have more widespread and long-term impact. My problem with him is that he believes in intelligent design. As you’ll probably agree the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the evidence for intelligent design is exactly zero. Spencer’s capability of ignoring such a large body of data creates serious issues for me regarding his other scientific views.

    I will not go into the US deficit, trade deficits, rescue plans and stimulus acts because I do believe it is/was way too much so there is not much of a discussion. All should be severely trimmed down or not have occurred at all.

    I do admire Germany’s efforts in getting energy independent. In a post 9/11 world this is something we should strive for too. Even if you don’t adhere to “the tragedy of the commons” for natural resources; economic, military and political security surely is important for you. All the drilling in Alaska will not make up for our oil imports if we don’t also become more energy efficient.

    By the way, I also admire French food, Italian cars and British comedy but that doesn’t mean I want to move there. Are you so thick that nothing outside of the good old USA can impress you?

    In addition, it’s weak that you quote IPCC data on the costs issue while at the same time you think the IPCC are a bunch of idiots. Most energy efficiency measures have upfront costs that are completely recovered due to lower energy consumption, especially in an environment of rising energy costs. On top of that, the conversion to energy efficiency will also create lots of new jobs just as it has in Germany.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m not a global warming proponent

    Let me get this straight: you’re NOT a global warming proponent, but you want us all to make the incredibly radical changes because you think global warming might be true?

    You frankly haven’t said one single substantial thing that a “global warming” proponent wouldn’t say.

    I put out that stuff about Obama, the stimulus, and all that nonsense about his cap and trade and about green jobs first of all to refute your notion that Germany’s recent economic improvements had anything to do with their environmental programs, but also to demonstrate that ALL THE GARBAGE THAT THE LEFT IS SPEWING OUT TO SOLVE THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS IS HURTING OUR ECONOMY.

    I believe I proved both contentions.

    As usual, you have a very demagogic interpretation of how I cite things (which is why you should probably just go away); but as usual you’re wrong. I don’t cite the IPCC data to represent their accurate understanding of the “threat” of global warming; I cite them to AGAIN PROVE YOU WRONG on the issue of how much the global warming movement says will be necessary to even begin to fix their nonexistent problem.

    You had just gotten through FALSELY saying it wasn’t a trillion dollar crisis; I just demonstrated that the people who say there’s a crisis say it’s a HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLAR CRISIS. And I’m still expecting that $666,000 check from you.

    I have factually refuted every single point you have made. But you’ve either dismissed it in freakish ways (i.e. that I have a point of view, so my proofs shouldn’t matter, or that you’re ignorant of the evidence so my proofs shouldn’t matter), or you’ve merely ignored the fact that you were proven wrong.

    You seem to live in some weird bubble in which solar and wind can actually compete with oil, coal, and natural gas.

    A couple of graphic representations of the facts:

    oil dwarfs green energy

    Our fossil fuels create 83% of our energy. And you think that 17% that remains will be enough for seven billion people, do you?

    Here’s an even more powerful chart which I can’t get onto the comment post without more work than I’m willing to do. Click on the link here to see how shockingly expensive renewable energy actually is compared to fossil fuels.

    And the costs of the energy sources your so happy about are so massive compared to fossil fuels that most of the world would quickly perish. Only the very rich would be able to afford this energy without that HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS in socialist redistribution of wealth you didn’t like me talking about.

    And you’re not even rich enough to send me that $666,000 for our share of the cost of your green vision, much less foot the bill for a world that has decided that due to a Chicken Little scenario, we can’t use the only fuels that even begin to be affordable.

    Remember Barry Wan Obami saying that:

    “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

    I contend that only the craziest of fools would prefer that to a policy based on using the resources that we STILL HAVE IN ABUNDANCE.

    And again, I’m the reasonable one in this debate; I’m the one who actually relies on FACTS rather than demonstrates an “I will not go into that” allergic reaction to them.

    And it’s not even just about costs, as I have already alluded to. Solar energy goes bye-bye every night. The wind stops blowing. And very few people on the planet could even possibly have any access to these and other sources whatsoever. Read this article to see that there is no way that renewable energy sources could even BEGIN to make a dent in fossil fuels. Here’s just one point:

    4.2 billion. That’s how many rooftops you’d have to cover with solar panels… Put another way, we’d need to equip 250,000 roofs a day with solar panels for the next 50 years to have enough photovoltaic infrastructure to provide the world with a CMO’s worth of solar-generated electricity for a year. We’re nowhere close to that pace.

    Now you should start to begin to see why that HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS might be a lowball estimate. Are YOU going to pay for us to put up solar panels in every single hovel in China, and India, and Africa, etc. etc.??? You’re not even giving me my $666,000 dollars!!!

    Now, every single thing you’ve said has been wrong. And I’ve demonstrated it. So it’s no surprise that you would end by saying something false:

    On top of that, the conversion to energy efficiency will also create lots of new jobs just as it has in Germany.

    Baloney. Just plain baloney (and I almost went with another word that starts with the letter ‘b’.

    Here are the facts:

    Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

    For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

    So you’re not creating jobs; you’re destroying jobs, and then “creating” half as many.

    Here is in microcosm what is going on every time this idiocy is tried:

    Thus is came to be that Obama allocated $100 billion of the stimulus package for the “green economy.”

    So how has that all worked out?

    Not so well.

    The last factory making incandescent light bulbs has closed.

    WINCHESTER, VA. – The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s.

    The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.

    Green? Maybe. A job creator? Sure- for China:

    Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China. […]

    “Everybody’s jumping on the green bandwagon,” said Pat Doyle, 54, who has worked at the plant for 26 years. But “we’ve been sold out. First sold out by the government. Then sold out by GE. ”

    And thank YOU for helping to sell out American jobs to China, Robert. You’ve been a superb useful idiot.

    And the next quote not only completely refutes your bogus claim, but it goes on to demonstrate what a useless and wasteful boondoggle green jobs are. Green energy is so wasteful and so intrinsically useless that each green job must be subsidized by as much as $1.4 million every year.

    The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating “green jobs” in “alternative energy” even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs? …

    Calzada says Spain’s torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada’s report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report “eco-corruption” leaving a “footprint of sleaze” — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain’s economy.

    Is there any other cowpie theory you’d like to share? Because cowpies contribute to global warming, you know.

    I can well understand why you’d try to say, “I’m not a global warming proponent.” Because frankly only an idiot would be such a proponent, and most people don’t want everyone to know that they’re an idiot.

    But how you can argue that you’re not a global warming proponent, even as you come to my blog arguing that we should take their alarmism seriously, is beyond me.

  14. Robert Says:

    You sir, are a fraud. Please follow this link, from the same agency you quoted.

    Latest numbers from the EIA. Same agency that you quoted but strangely enough states that the cost of solar energy will only be about 2.5 to 4 times the cost of coal. Furthermore, biofuel, wind and nuclear are all pretty comparable to the price of coal based electricity.

    And your quote “4.2 billion. That’s how many rooftops you’d have to cover with solar panels”.
    That’s actually not that far of the total number of rooftops in the world. So, you are actually saying that if we replace every tradional rooftop with a solar rooftop we already put a huge dent in fossil fuel consumption. Given that probably most have at leat one televison, this is not as imposibble as you make it sound.

    Anyway, given that a typical 4 KWatt solar roof costs about $20.000, that will result in that $100 trillion number you repeatedly quote.
    That is to replace the total energy need of the world with solar power. Assuming a working life of about 15-20 yrs, that works out to be about $8 trillion a year. The USA uses about 20% of total energy so that will result in a cost of about $1.6 trillion a year or $5200 per person per year. Still a lot of money, but a little less then your quote.

    Are we then still paying for gasoline, natural gas and coal? Well, no, because that is already included in the price.

    So, how much does that save?
    Again EIA:
    “In 2009, the United States consumed about 6,851,561 thousand barrels of oil. At $70 a barrel this already results in cost of $1750 per person.

    “In 2008, the United States consumed approximately 23 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. In 2008, the average price of natural gas used for electric power generation was $9.41 per Thousand Cubic Feet.”
    That’s about $0.2 trillion expenses for natural gas, or about $700 per person.

    Hmm, only oil and natural gas already acounts for $2250. I don’t feel like quoting coal and hydro but you get the point. If we install solar panels to replace all other energy sources it will about double our yearly energy costs.

    But hee, you say, isn’t solar a lot more expensive then other alternatives such as biofuel, wind energy, hydro and nuclear? Well, yes it is, about 2 to 3 times.

    Before you start, I’m not saying all this is immediately possible because silicon and copper prices would obviously go through the roof. My point is that if someone would try to be close to carbon neutral, the cost will not be many multiples of current energy costs but actually pretty comparable.
    You completely misrepresent data, like so many people on both sides of debate.

    Anyway, even if globalwarming is debunked, the top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports are Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria (also EIA).
    This does not concern you at all? Any crisis in these countries could quickly raise the price above $150 or maybe even $200 a barrel, just as it did in the 70s oil crisis and cause some serious pain.

    By the way, I’m actually not a boardmember of GE. If they go overseas that is their choice, not mine. The world is moving forward, incandescent lights bulbs are like tube tv’s and like the buggywhip factory, sometimes plants have to close. That has always been the american way. However, going overseas is a sad sign of the backwardness of current american manifacturing.

    Spain is obviously not a good example because it was massively overspending in the past years, created a huge housing bubble and had the most unstable bank system of the western hemisphere. Compared to them the US problems are nothing but a little bump.

    As a last point, you seem to be in a state that it is either this or that. Either completely fossil fuel or completely alternative. Things are not black or white, yes or no. For instance, biodiesel can be mixed in with regular diesel, sunny regions get solar panels, windy areas some windenergy and so on. Your view seems to be that every alternative is plain ridiculous which seriously hampers any discussion.

    For your information, historically, people have used windenergy for manufacturing and transport, solar energy for heating and hydro just for fun. It is not a hippie socialist thing but the way Columbus sailed the oceans and our founders came ashore.

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    You sir, are a fraud. Please follow this link, from the same agency you quoted.

    Latest numbers from the EIA. Same agency that you quoted but strangely enough states that the cost of solar energy will only be about 2.5 to 4 times the cost of coal.

    Now, you could have said something like, “You, sir, are wrong.” But instead of merely suggesting that I might have a factual error, you go aaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way to telling me that I’m a fraud. Which is to say in your context that I purposely fabricated or selectively reported data with the intent of falsifying my result (unless it is your assertion that I plagiarized).

    Here’s your challenge, Robert.

    I demand that you show specifically where I am a fraud. And I do mean specifically.

    You are apparently arguing the claim that solar would “only be about 2.5 to 4 times the cost of coal.” And that I provided a different number. But I never provide a number at all. I never attempted to specify how much more solar costs than coal. Unless you can show that I did, it’s YOU who are being a fraud. All I did was say “how shockingly expensive renewable energy actually is compared to fossil fuels.” And I have every reason to stand by that claim, even given your numbers.

    The closest I come to saying anything whatsoever about the actual costs of coal relative to solar is by merely providing a link to a chart that I didn’t create, which itself is hard to read precisely (which was one reason why I DIDN’T give a specific number). And that chart that I provide compares the energy cost per kilowatt hour of solar vs. fossil fuels. Unless I’m much mistaken, nothing in your article or the table lists the cost per kilowatt hour to be truly apples and apples. And nothing in the chart I link to says anything about “2016” power plants, or says anything about “levelized costs,” which clearly inflates the cost of the coal. Again, apples and apples.

    Further, here’s an article that clearly adds a charge/fee/fine of the pollution that a coal plant generates as part of its standard operating cost. That then becomes a completely artificial cost imposed by the government; not the real cost of what it would take for the coal plant to operate if Barack Obama-types weren’t bankrupting them with all kinds of crazy regulations that jack their costs way up. Do you know whether any of those shenanigans are going on in your table? It could well be that the values in the chart I link to are raw numbers that don’t take into account these jacked-up costs for coal.

    If this is what you are talking about, you will have to show that the chart I link to is fraudulent, and that it is NOT in fact based on any EIA numbers ever published as that chart says it is (and again, I didn’t come up with the damn graph, btw, anyway) in order to show that I am anything resembling a “fraud.” And even then, in order to be do your job maintaining that I am a fraud, you should also show by what standard linking to a chart that I did not create in the first place would be tantamount to “fraud” on my part. I mean, if you were a professor, and a kid writing a paper used a table in a book that turned out to be inaccurate, would you tell him he needed to do a better job researching, or would you try to have that kid expelled for academic fraud?

    Moreover, since the table in your article says it is an “estimate,” if I were to find a different set of numbers in any other EIA article, would you admit that YOU are a fraud and a liar for not using those other numbers? Since that is the standard you are demonizing me by?

    By the way, here’s a Wall Street Journal article that compares the cost of wind ($23.37) to gas ($00.25). Am I still a fraud for saying there’s a huge difference between the renewable energy and fossil fuels??? For the record, all I set out to do, and all I ever stated, was that there was a huge difference. I never mentioned any specific numbers. Until right here when I note the costs between wind and gas.

    You will prove I’m a fraud in your next post, or I will block YOU as a fraud.

    It’s okay to attack me personally on my blog, but you damn well better have the evidence to back up your claim when you do it. And you should realize that it’s one thing to say I’m a jerk, but quite another to say I am an intentionally dishonest fabricator of facts.

    For the record, I have already REPEATEDLY demonstrated that things you were saying were not true. But I NEVER had the vindictiveness to assert that you were a “fraud.”

    That said, you say another truly stupid thing about how easy it would be to put solar panels on 4.2 billion homes. Using your value of $20,000 ( found a site that said the average cost was $16,000, but we’re going with your numbers here), the total cost of installing solar panels on 4.2 billion roofs would be $84 TRILLION.

    And that’s just for putting solar panels on homes. That doesn’t do anything about getting gas guzzling cars, buses, and trucks off the road, or ships off the sea. That doesn’t do anything about cow flatulence. That doesn’t do anything about all the factories spewing out pollutants. $84 trillion. And we haven’t scratched the surface of our global warming problem. And who in the hell is going to pay that $84 trillion anyway? Certainly not you. You won’t even pay our share of the hundred trillion global warming tax with that $666,000.

    And moving on, let’s just assume for sake of argument that solar energy is “only” 2.5 to 4 times as expensive as coal. No big deal, right? The average multiplier your provide would be 3.25 (again, your numbers).

    Clearly, nobody cares about paying 3 1/4 times as much for something. I’m sure the overwhelming majority of Americans wouldn’t bat an eye paying $9.75 per gallon of gas. Because, heck, that’s barely an increase at all. And I’m sure that nobody would blink if milk were $11.50 a gallon tomorrow. I mean, no big deal, right?

    I’m sure you go into the grocery store and and tell the clerk you want to pay four times as much as the groceries cost. Just so you can be consistent with your energy ideas.

    What car do you drive? How much did it cost? Now send me a check for 3.25 times the amount you paid. Because it’s really no big difference, right? That kind of difference only matters to me, after all. And while we’re at it, let’s do the same thing for your house. Because judging by your rhetoric, you clearly don’t mind paying 3.25 times as much for something as you need to.

    And when are you going to send me that $666,000 for our share of the HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS that you don’t think is such a big deal?

    Real money that real people really have to pay doesn’t seem to mean much to you. I have to say I find it really weird.

    P.S. I was going to lampoon your final paragraph, but there’s already too way too much other junk you’ve pulled to deal with.

    P.P.S. Prove that I’m a fraud, as you claimed, showing me precisely where I was intentionally dishonest, or don’t bother posting back. Because I don’t have to tolerate that crap from anybody.

  16. Says:

    Michael, you are a [vulgar sexual reference removed by moderator]

  17. Michael Eden Says:


    I approved your remark just so I could have the pleasure of blocking you.

    You offer nothing to a discussion that is worth saying. You are utterly worthless. And you are bye-bye.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: