brenthutch

That is what I say about wind and solar. If you want to pay those prices, good on you just don't make me pay for your green new dream, as Nancy Pelosi put it. I will stick to natural gas, at least for the next hundred years or so. Speaking of natural gas, can't we all agree that it would be better to build more gas pipelines and use the gas rather than flare it into the atmosphere?

No it is just more evidence that there is no inexorable tide toward renewables, at the expense of fossil fuels. According to the EIA, by 2050 renewables will provide only 28% of global energy demand (a significant increase to be sure) while fossil fuels will account for 69%. So much for net zero by 2050. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433

https://images.app.goo.gl/Z4f12myxDkowNF189 I thought the Q could do anything they wanted

Why China’s Renewable Energy Transition Is Losing Momentum BY MICHAEL STANDAERT • SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 Growth of wind and solar in China is slowing as government funding for green energy falters and upgrades to the transmission infrastructure lag. With China’s CO2 emissions again on the rise, experts worry the world’s largest emitter may fall short of key climate goals. … After plateauing from 2014 to 2016, China’s carbon dioxide emissions have risen in the last several years, with an estimated 4 percent increase in the first half of 2019. While coal consumption and production peaked in 2013, both have increased again since 2017 and are slowly creeping back to 2013 levels. Reliance on gas from fracking in the Sichuan basin, as well as coal-bed methane extraction and increased imports of natural gas (China is the second-largest natural gas importer in the world), are on the rise. Since China counts unconventional gases like shale gas and coal-bed methane as “new energy,” they are eligible for subsidies from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology [MIIT]. Roughly $830 million — more than 80 percent of an MIIT new energy fund — went to subsidizing such projects in 2018, according to a recent report by the state-run China Energy News. While continuing to fund unconventional gas, China has now largely stopped providing national-level subsidies to wind and solar projects and is implementing reforms to its feed-in-tariff system, moving to replace it with auctions in which wind and solar power must compete directly with fossil fuels. … This process has started to slow the overall added capacity for wind and solar. While new solar photovoltaic installations hit an all-time high of 53 gigawatts [GW] in 2017, they slipped to around 41 GW last year and current figures put solar installations at slightly more than 11 GW for the first half of 2019. Projections are for about 25 GW of solar power to be installed this year and in succeeding years through 2025, an amount that would not sharply curtail fossil fuel use. Another problem is that renewable energy projects are facing land-use restrictions that protect agricultural, industrial, and urban land in provinces like Guangdong in South China, the country’s economic powerhouse, says Jonathan Luan Dong, a renewables analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. While several non-subsidized renewable energy projects had been scheduled to start in Guangdong in 2019, few actually seem to be moving forward. When I attempted to visit renewable energy projects that were said to be in the works, government offices and companies in the Guangdong cities of Jiangmen, Meizhou, and Zhanjiang declined my requests because the projects hadn’t started.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/watch-twerking-traffic-order-fight-climate-change After watching this I am seriously reconsidering my stance on climate change.

Like windmills and the IPCC, agreed.

I see no problem with a doubling of todays levels. At the rate we are going that won't happen until well after we have figured out fusion.(and you guys thought I hated technology) Until then, I think letting the poorer countries on the planet develop will be the best way to reduce suffering and help overall humanity.

I actually feel sorry for you guys. There is going to be no green new deal. Fossil fuels will continue to be the mainstay of energy on our planet for the foreseeable future. CO2 levels will continue to rise for the rest our lives. We will all live to realize that that your predictions of death and destruction were all wrong. And the most pathetic of all, is that you will be (and are) mad about it.

I forgot to mention that at no time did was her advice taken

No, its more like a Dr. telling you that you will have heart disease by thirty if you don't take her very expensive prescription, then at thirty she tells you that you will definitely have gout when you are forty if you don't. Then at forty she tells you that you will certainly have cancer by the time you are fifty if you do not heed her advice. When you are fifty years old and all of her predictions have failed will you continue to believe her? I'm sure some on this forum will point out that when you do pass at the tender age of 95 that the doctor was right all along and her timing was just off.

Just like the IPCC. Global warming er.. uh...Climate change will result in a 100% chance of something happing.

If you are half way there (1 degree C) and there is still none of the scary stuff that we were promised, it is a pretty good indication that there won't be. https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35

Somebody better tell Elon Musk, because he calls them subsidies. Checkmate

Joe, you are conflating a prediction with what is actually happening. The study also assumes that drought will accompany any warming we might experience. Thus far there is no indication that higher global temperatures result in an increase in drought. If anything adding more water to the hydrologic cycle will result in LESS drought not more.

It was just an example of hypocrisy. A pox on both their houses.

What you don't understand is that money is fungible. The money you get from your tax deduction has already gone to Musk in the form of the full price you paid for your Tesla. You are just being used as an intermediary. Government gives you a tax credit and you pass that on to Tesla.

Sound just like what just happened to Michael Mann https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php If his data could withstand scrutiny, why wouldn't he produce it and win his case?

That leaves 497

https://www.climategate.nl/2019/09/84293/ Hundreds of scientists agree, THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGANCY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU Yes but I don't charge an extra $5.00 per jump to pay for carbon offsets or bear patrol or tiger repelling rocks

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html "Musk and his companies’ investors enjoy most of the financial upside of the government support, while taxpayers shoulder the cost. The payoff for the public would come in the form of major pollution reductions, but only if solar panels and electric cars break through as viable mass-market products. For now, both remain niche products for mostly well-heeled customers."

"A recent study cited by the report estimated the total acres burned in western forests under current climate conditions and in a model without human-caused warming. It found that half as much forest area would have burned between 1984 and 2015 in a world not warmed by climate change." But the MODEL claims that wildfires would be halved if not for climate change. Therefor we would need to see above average drought and high temperatures for that claim to be valid. But we don't and it isn't. The most devastating fire in recent history was on the heals of one of the wettest springs in history and temperatures were in the 70s.

"in a model" no need to go further. The most devastating wildfire in recent history had none of the fingerprints of AGW. No drought, no unusually high temps, no unusually high winds. The only thing that was unpresented was the unprecedented hyperbole..

I guess I just don't understand how poring taxpayer dollars into Elon Musk's pockets make America better off. We are not running out of gasoline and EVs will not save the planet from a climate apocalypse. It is just like corn ethane; just a bunch of left wing boondoggle virtue signaling.

But of course we all no that sea level rise is on or about the same rate it has be since the end of the last ice age, storms are no stronger, there are no more wildfires, no more droughts, and ocean acidification is another fantasy dreamed up by the same guys who failed with their polar bear predictions. It cracks me up when you show the latest prediction as proof, only to fail and fail again.