BB4 on Climate Change (updated 26jul13)

George Rebane

Breaking Bread Edition #4 on Climate Change will be recorded this Monday at the NCTV studios.  The issues discussion program will be hosted by Eric Tombs and I will be one of Eric’s guests.  Climate change is, of course, today’s more acceptable term for global warming, specifically man-made or anthropogenic GW, specifically correctable AGW, and specifically ‘We just gotta do SOMETHING!!!’ AGW.  We had a pre-taping session the other day during which the strong argument of the true believers was again presented – consensus science.  When it was pointed out that 1) there is no consensus science on AGW, and 2) consensus science should send up red flags and wailing sirens whenever it is cited, things got a little heated.

What really nudged me to post on this was Matt Ridley’s Mind and Matter column in the 6jul13 WSJ titled ‘Science is about Evidence NOT Consensus’.  (Sadly, this is Dr Ridley’s last regular column for the WSJ.  The distinguished author and member of the House of Lords is returning to his many other pursuits.  I shall miss him.)  Ridley uses climate change as his example to teach how scientific propositions should be evaluated.  RR readers are well aware of his arguments which have made not a dent in some commenters beliefs on the matter.

Well, at our BB4 meeting it became clear that ‘Consensus Über Alles’ will be the one and only redoubt from which the adherents of climate change will sally forth.  The format of BB properly prohibits participants launching ad homonyms against their opposite numbers.  It is a forum where ideas are explained, and where ideas may then contend on their own merits.  However, today this topic is so asymmetrically supported by reason that it was suggested there should be no attempt to discredit consensus science if that is all one could muster to support energetic public policies to combat AGW.  The short of it was that opinions based on warm fuzzies should weigh equally with those more formidably armed - after all, are we not all equal?  But not to worry dear reader, the proposal did not carry.

Matt Ridley’s swansong admonitions are worthy recounting as we prepare for the 2,047,619th ‘discussion’ on climate change.

…the "consensus" about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty.

…science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feynman once said, is "the belief in the ignorance of experts."

So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the "consensus" says.

The article is too short, but well worth the read.

[11jul13 update]  We taped BB4 last Monday (8jul13) evening at NCTV, and apparently it has already been aired, and will be again.  For the next showings please visit NCTV here.  It will soon be available for online viewing on the Breaking Bread website.

[19jul13 update] Remaining BB4 broadcast from NCTV are:

Thursday 7/18/2013, 6:00 PM, Channel 11

Sunday 7/21/2013, 5:00 PM, Channel 11

Monday 7/22/2013, 9:30 AM, Channel 11

No word yet on when it will appear on line.

[26jul13 update]  The video of BB4 is archived and can be found on this page of the NCTV website filed under 18 July programs - or you can simply search the page (Ctrl F) with 'Breaking Bread'.

 

Comments

[Russ Steele]

Scientific Heresy

by Matt Ridley

Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of the Arts

Edinburgh, 31 October 2011

It is a great honour to be asked to deliver the Angus Millar lecture. I have no
idea whether Angus Millar ever saw himself as a heretic, but I have a soft spot
for heresy. One of my ancestral relations, Nicholas Ridley the Oxford martyr,
was burned at the stake for heresy.

My topic today is scientific heresy. When are scientific heretics right and
when are they mad? How do you tell the difference between science and
pseudoscience?

Let us run through some issues, starting with the easy ones.
- Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience.
- Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience.
- Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience.
- Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience.
- Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience.
- Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience

Ridley examines the AGW pseudoscience and concludes:

In conclusion, I’ve spent a lot of time on climate, but it could have been dietary fat, or nature and nurture. My argument is that like religion, science as an institution is and always has been plagued by the temptations of confirmation bias. With alarming ease it morphs into pseudoscience even – perhaps especially – in the hands of elite experts and especially when predicting the future and when there’s lavish funding at stake. It needs heretics. Thank you very much for listening.

Full Lecture Text is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa.pdf

[stevenfrisch]

George, who else will be on the show? Who is presenting the case that climate change is occurring, that the human contribution is significant, that it is a serious problem, and that humans have a responsibility to mitigate its impacts and assist people and ecosystems with adapting to changed conditions?

[Bill Tozer]

Mr. Frisch, it is unfortunately too late for you to present the consensus side on the show, which is really a show and not a debate because the debate is over.

I think you would be great on air. Don an old tweed sport jacket, a nice curved tobacco pipe and speak with the commanding air of smugness with a not so subtle slight British accent. That in and of itself should be enough to convince everyone that you are correct and the others are illiterate buffoons.

[George Rebane]

stevenfrisch 704pm - I don't want to blow Eric's guest list any more than announcing my participation. But rest assured that the panel will be balanced on the divergent views, and the post-enquiry adherents' arguments will be represented along with the those of the skeptics. Again, here are my views of some years ago, these still form the basis of my skepticism, which have also been embraced by a growing number of other science trained skeptics.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/Climate_Change_Format_22jan08.pdf

[MikeL]

I suggest that congresswomen Debi Wassermen Shlizt be on the panel... She is very convinced that hurricane Sandy is a direct result of man caused climate global warming change. Maybe Al Gore can come on to explain his fantasy sea level rise projections. Hopefully someone will be available to explain why nearly a "consensus" of the computer models that have been used to promote the AGW mime of a fiery future have not been able to accurately follow the flat temperature trend of the last sixteen years.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Bill Tozer | 07 July 2013 at 07:42 PM

Why thank you Bill, I would have been happy to have been a guest to talk about what Nevada County organizations are doing re: "Dealing With Climate Change." The organization I work for has done more than 1000 energy efficiency installs in small and medium sized businesses and municipal facilities in the last three years saving more than 21 million kWh of electricity and saving local entities more than $3 million per year. We are working with 17 local jurisdictions on greenhouse gas emission reporting. We are working on climate action plans in two jurisdictions that cover substantive portions of the Sierra Nevada, in Lake Tahoe and through the Fresno COG. In the last 12 years we have directly participated in the management of more than 75,000 acres of forest land. We have managed a process to restore more than 3,000 aces of forest in Nevada County burned in the Martis Fire. We have participated in the drafting and approval of both the California Forest Carbon Protocols through the Climate Reserve and the California Air Resources Board. We have participated in the acquisition of conservation easements on forestlands owned by Sierra Pacific Industries and Noarthstar-at-Tahoe. I would never imply that engaging in that work has made us experts but we do know a thing or two about what local entities are doing to 'deal with climate change'.

[stevenfrisch]

George, this is the regular program with Alan Stahler, Sharon Delgado, you, and Steve Baker? No guest?

[Bill Tozer]

Excellent Mr. Frisch. I like saving money and if comes by one of those light bulbs that looks like something you buy at Dairy Queen, then count me in. I like forests as well.

I have been contemplating using a contraption known as a solar clothes dryer. It just takes a small diameter rope between 2 tress, but I haven't figured out how to make it work on rainy days. And some clothespins. An idea I got from my Grandma. A penny saved is a penny earned.

Wonder if I should use a hemp rope to attract the natural loving crowd, or a nylon rope to attract the penny conscious crowd. Need more marketing research.

[Todd Juvinall]

I bet when you add in the taxpayer subsidy dollars to the 1000 jobs Mr. F says he did the price per KW is way up there. Sort of like the solar panel hysteria. Or even those Prius or Volt cars. Way more expensive than regular cars. But hey, SBC gets to drill the taxpayers in two or three ways to make their dough. A grant to assist the homeowner,SBC gets a cut, the homeowner gets a tax credit and the SBC pays no taxes. A great way to drive a great country into the dirt. Thanks Frisch, you are a pip! The planet thanks you.

[Todd Juvinall]

I think this will get you to SBC's 990's filed at the state. Very interesting. I wonder if they were scrutinized by the IRS? LOL. What a scam.
?

http://oag.ca.gov/charities/charity-research-tool#Location:Summary

[Michael Anderson]

Hey Todd, regarding those Dutch relatives of yours, did they have anything to do with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Got Viceroy?

[stevenfrisch]

Uh, yeah, well Todd is just talking off the top of his head now. The cost per kWh of savings in our program is about $0.30. But the savings go on for the life of the measure installed, so the savings in most cases go on for many years. Oh, and we don't do residential properties (as I stated). We only do small and medium sized businesses and municipal facilities (like the projects we did at Wayne Brown and the Rood Center). Nevada County has been quite proactive in this area. There are no tax credits involved. And we hire local Sierra Nevada contractors and use local suppliers. I don't think saving customers money is driving our great country into the dirt. At least the 1000 customers we have served don't seem to think so. They are just happy to use less energy and have lower utility bills.

[Gregory]

I'm more concerned about who, besides George, stands for the skeptics/scoffers on this one.

A question for Frisch... was that SBC's energy efficiency handiwork at the Mowen Solinsky Gallery in Nevada City?

[Todd Juvinall]

Drisch, obviously you do not understand a solar subsidy. Especially the ones on a government building. Then you fail to answer the questions about cost per KW comparing your solar subsidy and a straight non-subsidy KW. You must nclude all the components, not just those you cherry-pick.

Comparing thr Prius to a Hummer was my favorite since it proved the debacle of the Prius and the arguments of the "do-gooders". When all components were compared over the lide of the vehicles the Hummer came out a better seal on the environment.

I see MichaelA is attending the raunchy, nude filled drug fest called Burning Man again. I have a tenant qho used to go but now he says it is too bizarre for him. I think you need to be unhinged to go to that thing. MA must be a tad off upstairs.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2013 at 07:30 AM

I am thinking you don't know the difference between energy efficiency and distributed generation. Solar is distributed generation. We don't do that yet. We install energy efficiency measures like controls, refrigeration upgrades, HVAC systems, LED lighting systems, monitoring software, etc. The figure I cited is the average one time cost per kWh of installed energy efficiency measures; for every $0.30 of TOTAL install cost we save 1 kWh of electricity for the life of the measure. Most measures have a shelf life of at eight years, and many longer. Thus a 8 year measure costs about $0.04 per kWh.

And funny, Hummer is out of business and the Prius is the #4 best selling car in America.

[stevenfrisch]

No Greg, Mowen Solinsky Gallery was not a customer under our program. They were customers under a previous program before we started the Sierra Nevada Energy Watch program.

[stevenfrisch]

Ooops...I meant to post the link re: best selling cars in America:

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/05/america-best-selling-cars-april-2013-usa.html

[Todd Juvinall]

Frisch, I am sure the taxpayers would like to know the payback time of their money. Is it one year, ten, 20? You don't seem to inderstand the basics of economics based on your responses.

Regarding the Hummer, I am not making a judgement on where they are today. The libs and the government along with a cooing press have made the Prius what it is and what the Hummer became. You libs started sttacking SUV's back in the 90's and like AGW were able to drumbeat it into brainwashed heads.

[Gregory]

"And funny, Hummer is out of business and the Prius is the #4 best selling car in America."

Not anymore, if ever. By the May YTD numbers, the Prius is #14 in the USA:
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/06/usa-car-sales-rankings-by-model-may-2013-ytd.html

[Michael Anderson]

Todd, you may be interested to learn that there is a registered art project at Burning Man this year called "The Juvinall."

It's an interactive piece: a giant gasbag you can poke and it makes all kinds of hilarious noises. Plus, you can put it on a tether and walk it through a faux TCA scanner consisting of two squirrels who frown and scream in anger when they realize that the gasbag ain't got no nuts.

[Gregory]

Let me guess... Steven Frisch, you might want to revise how you decided Prius was number 4 from the April chart you linked.

It appears you singlehandedly doubled the Prius sales YTD.

[Todd Juvinall]

Michaela, you are certainly obsessed with my private parts. Are you excited?

Tell us all how much of a carbon footprint you are creting when you burn the totem out there in the desert. All you nuts driving your smoke belching Volvos into the pristine desert of Nevada has to have a negative impact on global warming. Too funny.

[Gregory]

"[Mpwen Solinsky] were customers under a previous program before we started the Sierra Nevada Energy Watch program."

Who administered that previous program?

[Gregory]

Add trucks and SUV's and the Prius drops to #25, with Toyota *barely* selling more Prius models than Jeep sold Grand Cherokees:

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/07/usa-auto-sales-rankings-by-model-june-2013-ytd.html

[stevenfrisch]

Ooops....I misread the data.....I was wrong and you were right. I apologize.

Still, Hummer, gone, Prius, popular.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2013 at 08:54 AM

Every project is individually monitored and evaluated. The average payback is about 8 months, but many projects pay back in less time. The big stuff like refrigeration skews the numbers upward. The average life of a measure is 8 years, so at $0.30 per kWh installed and an 8 year average, the total cost installed is about $0.04 per kWh per year, or less than 1/4 the average rate per kWh for residential non-demand time electricity. This is why it makes sense for almost anyone considering the costs, and one of the major reasons why Californians use on average 1/2 the electricity the average American does per capita.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 09:18 AM

Sorry Greg, I am not going to speak ill of our competition ;)

[Gregory]

Popular? Jeep sold more Wrangler SUVs than Toyota sold Prius sedans. Adding the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler sales (the latter being a mini-me)

Chevy sold more Impalas than Toyota sold Prius. I didn't even know Chevy still sold Impalas.

The Hummer line died because they were never a great vehicle in the first place, and it didn't fit the Government Motors forward plans.

[Gregory]

That dangler should have read "Add all the Jeeps together and you get more than twice as many Jeep wheels as Prius wheels on the road.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 10:12 AM

Jeez, Greg, don't you know how to just say thank you?

14th is still popular. There are hundreds if not thousands of automobile models in the country.

At 11 mpg @ $4.00 per gallon it would cost $36K to do 100,000 miles in the Hummer, and $8,000 to do it in the Prius. for the price of the difference in gas over 100,000 miles you could buy another Prius!.

[Todd Juvinall]

Frisch still doesn't understand the point I made on the Prius and Hummer. It is just too complex for him I guess.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2013 at 11:18 AM

Exactly what point are you making Todd? The imposition of fuel efficiency standards in the US has nothing to do with the failure of the Hummer. The fuel efficiency does...they are just expense pigs to drive. How about you make your point clearly in a simple declarative sentence?

[Michael Anderson]

Todd asked: "...you are certainly obsessed with my private parts. Are you excited?"

I am your mirror, Todd. If the mirror image is excited, then the answer is yes.

Todd moralized: "Tell us all how much of a carbon footprint you are creating when you burn the totem out there in the desert."

The amount of energy "wasted" putting on the Burning Man project each year is equal to about an hour of 1 morning's commute in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange counties. But I do appreciate your singling out an art festival for closure, as opposed to fixing L.A.'s ongoing wasteful transit policy. Typical for someone who's garage calendar is stuck on 1952.

[Todd Juvinall]

Greg, I think SteveF makes many errors on his posts like the easy one on the Prius numbers. That is a major reason his credibility is so low.

[Todd Juvinall]

It looks like SBC got taxpayer grants of 800 thousand or so in 2011. No returns yet for 2012. His membership numbers bring in 23K or so so it looks like to me the SBC has shrunken way down and has become a tax sucking entity, sort of like planned parenthood.

[stevenfrisch]

Todd proves once again he does not know how to read a 990 form!

[Todd Juvinall]

Does it list a set of grants from the government for over 700K in 2011? I think I know how to read but if you are saying you are lying on your 990's then I should ask for some clear analysis by the IRS, Sec of State and others so I can better understand what you have placed in your returns. You show your total "political" expenditures as $1200 or so. Is that correct?

[Gregory]

Jeez, Steve, you didn't act any faster on this than I did regarding my error regarding your op-ed, and you want a bloody medal? Had I used you as a guide, I'd still be talking about your lying about the Prius being #4.

Besides, since the issue that prompted it was the Hummer/Prius comparison, and your choice to exclude all trucks and SUVs when citing a list excluded all of the Hummer-like vehicles in the first place. Yet another lie-of-omission by you, Steve, a habit you should kick. The Prius is #25, not #5 or 4 by the original comparison, and the Prius numbers are dwarfed by the totals for the top 10, in round numbers, nearly 2 million vehicles YTD, ~25 times the Prii.

For lifetime low energy and repair costs, it's hard to beat the Corolla or a Jetta TDI, neither of which require exotic and very expensive batteries to be replaced on a regular basis.

So, you just don't want to say who worked the PG&E effort for the gallery in Nevada City; I somehow doubt it's an issue of not wanting to badmouth the competition.

[Gregory]

"At 11 mpg @ $4.00 per gallon it would cost $36K to do 100,000 miles in the Hummer, and $8,000 to do it in the Prius. for the price of the difference in gas over 100,000 miles you could buy another Prius!."

Hmm, what lie of omission might be lurking here... add a few thousand for replacing the battery pack. Even if the owner gets it under warranty, other Toyota drivers are paying for it.

[Bill Tozer]

The good think about a Prius is once you get inside and push the gas pedal, suddenly your farts don't stink.

[Ken Jones]

Greg
There are many examples where the battery in a Prius has a long life cycle. I included a link of a Taxi company that had a very long life for batteries. Don't know if this is typical but illustrates that the argument that a Prius is not a green or clean vehicle is without premise.

http://motorauthority.com/news/1023454_toyota-prius-taxi-tops-340000mi-dispels-battery-myth

[stevenfrisch]

Todd, once again you are reading the 990 form wrong. I suggest you download the IRS handbook and look at the step by step instructions.

The number you are referring to is Section VIII Line 1 e. of our return. In that line it identifies $713,483 coming from "Government Grants". According to the IRS handbook that line is used to describe all revenue not coming from "Membership Dues, Fundraising Events, Related Organizations, and 'other'". Contributions that come from federally recognized private foundations are reported in Line 1. e., thus all private foundation revenue was reported here. Since you don't really follow these things I would not expect you to know this without reading the manual, but since you insist on providing false information I thought I should correct you.

In addition you stated, "it looks like to me the SBC has shrunken way down". SBC's 990's show revenue in 2010 of #2,066,040 and revenue in 2011 of $2,427,413, an increase of about 17%. 2010 net assets were $112, 975' 2011 net assets were $371,212--they tripled.

And yes, we spent $1,200 on outreach to elected officials, which is 0.00049% of our budget.

[stevenfrisch]

Yes Greg, and the transmission could go out on your Grand Cherokee as well. I have had my Honda Hybrid for 10 years now and never had to change the battery. Prius batteries can last a very long time if cared fro properly, but really, its just another part.

[fish]

Howdy boys...welcome to the future.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/07/diesels?fsrc=nlw|newe|7-8-2013|6081501|36317366|

[Russ Steele]

fish,

Bring it on! I love my GMC Diesel Pickup and look forward to our next sedan being a diesel, that is if the Volvo X-70 every dies and needs a replacement.

[fish]

I love my GMC Diesel Pickup and look forward to our next sedan being a diesel, that is if the Volvo X-70 every dies and needs a replacement.

I test drove the VW Jetta and loved it. Can't justify the expense yet.....some day!

[Gregory]

My Corolla/Prizm has something like 150k miles without any work besides repairing rear end damage (like when I stopped for the school bus flashing red lights that Ford F-series truck behind me didn't stop for) that would have totaled a Prius. That was the second time the Prizm got smashed from behind; I suggest Steve 'meet his maker' and talk to my late wife to get the details on that one, assuming he gets a similar final address... Her beliefs, not mine.

No, the battery isn't just like any other part that needs replacing. Even if a hybrid doesn't self declare the *need* to get it replaced, MPG decreases with lower capacity, ending up with just about the same mileage of a standard car with the same engine size, and less acceleration.

A clutch kit with all the parts needed for my Corolla/Prizm is $134 and in stock at Riebe. I keep waiting for the need, but my bro who once had the same car still had his original clutch at 250k. A short block engine would cost maybe $1600, still about half of what that battery might cost you, and that hybrid also has a similar gas engine; that short block is more like $2000.

The hybrid is a Rube Goldberg technology that pays off only if you don't look at the higher maintenance, repair and insurance costs.

Simple is better.

[Todd Juvinall]

SteveF, I think you have confirmed that I am correct and you are dodging. Why don't you give us all the list of grants comprising the 770k? If I am misreading the term commonly used and listed in your 990 as "government grants" then I humbly apologize. Your explanation reminds me of the US Army's 52 page recipe for chocolate chip cookies. You make a good bureaucrat SteveF.

[Ben Emery]

Greg,
An expert on cars as well, who knew? We own a hybrid since my wife does so much traveling for her work, equine therapist. We are about to move past the 300,000 mile on it and it is running fine. On the other hand I used to own a high sierra 3/4 ton that couldn't keep an exhaust manifold seal for more than a few thousand miles. It made the engine extremely loud, dropped the power, and the already horrible gas mileage got even worse. Sold the son bitch and went on a 3 month back packing trip with my Dad and brother to Alaska. The best thing that truck ever did for me.

[Ben Emery]

Steve,
You can give every detail and Juvinall is going to say you didn't give him enough. It is a very childish game but I wouldn't expect anything different from him.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 05:45 PM

"I suggest Steve 'meet his maker' and talk to my late wife to get the details on that one, assuming he gets a similar final address."

You know Gregory we cut you a lot of slack. I don't really care to know about your personal life....I can only assume that you spend a lot of time in darkened rooms....but I suggest we nor bring any other members of the 'family' into this conversation. I don't really mind if you wish me dead....but saying it is over the line.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2013 at 05:55 PM
Posted by: Ben Emery | 08 July 2013 at 06:06 PM

Yes Ben, it is as though Todd is just about the densest person I have ever met. I prove him wrong; any reader can go to the instructions and look it up; and still he acts like he knows something. What a complete moron. It is like Todd is cartoon of a 1960's Nevada County kid who took off on a motorcycle instead of going to Vietnam one day, and stopped growing. Sad really, if we still lived in the 40's he would be Li'l Abner.

[Gregory]

Ben, 6:02, it ain't rocket science. Cars, motorcycles, airplanes are all reasonably simple machinery that obey the same laws of physics that everything else does.

BTW I worked on rockets for a year, too, fresh out of college, but I'm sure you saw that one coming.

[Gregory]

Show Topic: Dealing with Global Warming

DISCUSSION POINTS:

What we can do as individuals and as a society about a rapidly warming planet?

Eric Tombs - TOMES in Grass Valley, Show Host: Eric Tomb

Eric's Guests:
Steve Baker, Sharon Delgado, George Rebane and Al Stahler

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Note that it doesn't start with any doubt... it's "a rapidly warming planet" that just hasn't been warming for about 20 years. The global lower atmospheric temperature anomaly from the average since 1979 for May is a scorching 0.07 degree C (about an eighth of a degree Fahrenheit, but that's just "weather". June's will be released any day now.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Solar cycle 24 continued its lower path in July, and some very reputable scientists are expecting 25 to be even weaker.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif

[Todd Juvinall]

I always know when BenE and SteveF are lying. They go personal. What a hoot! Lil Abner! Yep, ya'll got me good. But I get Daisy Mae and you two get a poodle.

[Gregory]

"You know Gregory we cut you a lot of slack."

I love the Imperial "we", even if it is totally misplaced, not to mention a bizarre view of your actual words over the years. That must be a usage of the word "slack" of which I was previously unaware. Or maybe you are aware of the falsity and it is actually one of those "lies" you are so fond of.

"I don't really care to know about your personal life....I can only assume that you spend a lot of time in darkened rooms"

Not at all, Steve. Lots of sunlight, especially recently, as I'm rushing to finish a deck reconstruction before a deadline.

"....but I suggest we nor bring any other members of the 'family' into this conversation. I don't really mind if you wish me dead....but saying it is over the line."

There you go again, reading more into what is written than what is written. The timing is up to you but you will be assuming room temperature eventually, and I can wait. Please, feel free to go first.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 05:45 PM

"I suggest Steve 'meet his maker' and talk to my late wife to get the details on that one, assuming he gets a similar final address."

[George Rebane]

More resurrected 'spam' - dear people, I dug out more comments from my spam folder and published them. Please holler (short comment) when you don't see your comment post right away.

[Gregory]

Frisch, 8:07

We might note there was no suggestion as to when, how or why.

[Todd Juvinall]

So SteveF, why are you not giving us the list of your 990 form government grants totalling 700k or so??

[Bill Tozer]

Gregory | 08 July 2013 at 05:45 PM
Mr. Gregory. I bought a Geo Prism (Corolla) from a co-worker a few years ago. Paid $450 for it and drove it for a few years. That car had some major pick up and go. I would blow off 50k cars all day long over the summit and never once did it not start in a millisecond, rain or shine. It had a lot of miles on it but ran like a champ. Finally sold it to some kid for 100 dollars when I found another deal (steal). That kid one night became airborne in the Prism, smashed into a tree 30 feet off the road, and walked away. He claims he was only going 35mph, lol. I always wondered it them old airbags worked. He found out they did.

The real point is later I was reading a list of the best 10 cars made. I was pleasantly surprised that the 90-94? Geo Prism was on the list. Yes, parts were cheaper that the Geo Metro and was born to run with dependability.

[Joe Koyote]

The wording “fact based” versus “consensus based” implies that one side is factual and the other is not, which is misleading. If you are not a climatologist doing active research, then whenever you provide “facts” in a discussion about climate change, you are passing on secondary information. In other words, you have no personal experience or knowledge about the subject and really don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You are simply passing on your opinion (or gas as the case may be) based upon information you got from a media source. The real issue then becomes how credible or biased are your sources of information. Dr. Matt (the 5th Viscount) Ridley is a zoologist by training and a writer by trade giving his opinion about consensus in climate science in the WSJ opinion pages. These are his opinions not facts. WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch whose penchant for sensationalism, distortion and bias is legendary. Even before Murdoch bought the WSJ, its editorial pages were well known for their corporate bias, as one would expect.

If your opinions are based on information from Heritage, American Enterprise, or other oil industry and billionaire funded think tanks and “research” facilities, which (surprise! Surprise!) generate practically all of the denial “science”, your opinions could be based on facts and conclusions that are questionable at best and would be better described as industry propaganda. Denial science sells books and lectures and delays action that could harm corporate profits while people argue over its validity. The primary goal in damage control is to delay any potential harmful action as long as possible. That is the purpose of denial science. It is a public relations ploy. How long did the cancer and tobacco debate go on? Yes, I know that a flat Earth was once the consensus, but that was before information traveled around the world at the speed of light. Personally, I’m going with the consensus and putting my money behind the climatologists. How can that many people be wrong and so few be right. It doesn't make sense.

[Michael Anderson]

This is like a nice Car Talk column, and then Mephistopheles enters stage right from the Vomitorium and all hell breaks loose.

I love it. Because as you know, I love the comedy.

BTW Todd, there are now both Kickstarter and Ingiegogo campaigns for "The Juvinall" art project at Burning Man this year. Send me a private email if you would like the links. You are being immortalized.

On Twitter, #Gasbagtinynuts

[fish]

If your opinions are based on information from Heritage, American Enterprise, or other oil industry and billionaire funded think tanks and “research” facilities, which (surprise! Surprise!) generate practically all of the denial “science”, your opinions could be based on facts and conclusions that are questionable at best and would be better described as industry propaganda. Denial science sells books and lectures and delays action that could harm corporate profits while people argue over its validity.

Rest assured Joe that "climate change" is a trope to generate revenue...nothing more! Those valiant non-biased, non-"industry" propaganda-free scientists (government/academia) they bark like trained seals for grant money and grant money is always political.

[Bill Tozer]

M fish, You stole my thunder. I was about to answer Mr. J Koyote's last question with 3 words: Money and Ego.

[Todd Juvinall]

MichaelA, I would think your attendance at the Burning Man would suffice for your perversions. I am uninterested in you as you seem to be a Todd "wannabee" and that just creeps me ut. You have a mental issue which needs attendance. Please seek help. You have health insurance, use it. What a hoot!

[Russ Steele]

JoeK@09:27PM

From the Urban Dictionary: Grant Whore [Warmer Climatologists]

A mediocre academic whose one career accomplishment is that he/she knows how to write successful research grants but has no idea how to focus that research for any pratical results.

Dr. Patterson is a rotten teacher but he has tenure because he's such a grant whore. He brings in 25 million a year for his research into the boxers vs breifs question.

In the Climate Change case, warmer climatologist bring in millions a year in grants to solve a non-existing problem -- climate change is a natural cycle that has been going on for millions if not billions of years, humans in all their hubris cannot change that cycle.

[Ken Jones]

Russ @ 8:12 am

From the Urban Dictionary:
Denial Silence is the curious form of cognitive dissonance that masquerades as real science, and that is exhibited by those people who claim that there is no human influence on the current trend in global warming/climate change.

The 'Silence' portion of the term 'Denial Silence' is also a reference to the 'Silence' in Dr Who - a race of aliens able to edit from a human's mind any memory of ever having seen, heard or encountered these aliens, as soon as the humans are no longer able to see them. Similarly, deniers of anthropogenic global warming appear to edit from their minds any knowledge/understanding of real science as soon as they hear, read, or are otherwise informed of actual climatological/physical fact.

[George Rebane]

Well, I see that the climate change has again found its blind alley that ends in an eternal roundabout.

[fish]

Similarly, deniers of anthropogenic global warming appear to edit from their minds any knowledge/understanding of real science as soon as they hear, read, or are otherwise informed of actual climatological/physical fact.

I'm not a denier Ken....I'm just not convinced. Given all the questionable actions on both sides of the issue I think that this is not an unreasonable position. But go ahead take the proponents side....on faith.

[Ken Jones]

Fish just playing the game that Russ initiated. You assume I take the proponents side as well. I tend to believe the experts from NASA, NOAA, the EPA and other respected science. Science trumps faith Fish. But I can't say I am 100% convinced, yet. I believe it better to be proactive than reactive.

[Gregory]

JK 9:27PM
"The wording “fact based” versus “consensus based” implies that one side is factual and the other is not, which is misleading. If you are not a climatologist doing active research, then whenever you provide “facts” in a discussion about climate change, you are passing on secondary information. In other words, you have no personal experience or knowledge about the subject and really don’t know what the hell you are talking about."

While I don't use that particular dichotomy, JK, you do a good job of unwittingly illustrating it. You have passed on actually understanding the facts as being impossible for anyone but experts in the very narrow field of climate science to understand, and one therefore who is not a climate scientist must defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who publish their papers in journals that don't accept papers that don't follow the politically correct conclusions, and have what is not so politely referred to as "pal review" to unsure even weak papers that get the 'right' result find a home.

You don't have to be a bona fide climate scientist to read papers in climate science. Anyone who has enough of a science background to wade through any issue of Scientific American cover to cover without getting lost or bored can probably do so. Reading and a basic understanding takes different skills than producing, and papers in peer reviewed journals have already passed a smell test, limited that may be be for a pal reviewed journal.

There is a *large* body of research that has called into question some of the key assumptions about clouds and aerosols used by all of the computer models, all of which have severely overestimated warming. This is true for the models used by James Hansen (phd in physics, originally an astronomer and astrophysicist) to start the ball rolling at NASA, and all of the models accepted by the last IPCC report, all of which have overshot the actual temperatures by a wide enough margin to falsify the models themselves.

Claims of settled science are false; at the moment, everyone agrees CO2 itself will cause a little more than 1C warming for a doubling, but neither the magnitude or the sign of the climate's response has been determined. A number of physicists looking at real data believe the feedback is either negative or weakly positive, both of which are stable, and the falsified models from 'climate science' all indicate moderate to severe positive feedback responses, all of which are unstable.

Then there's an over 500 million year record (Shaviv & Veizer 2003) of the world's average ocean temps varying nicely about 7C peak to peak, no signs of instability, varying by our location as our solar system revolves around the Milky Way center, passing though arms of our galaxy every 160 million years or so. The *major* ice ages are all when we're surrounded by other stars, the *major* hothouses are all when we're between spiral arms, with a *very* strong correlation between high energy cosmic rays and temps.

I assure you, all of what I've written above is from peer reviewed science that petrochemical money had nothing to do with; that's BS thrown out by alarmists who need a bogeyman to be the cause of their opposition.

[Russ Steele]

Gregory@01:43PM

Well said! How we can all wander into the garden and listen to the crickets.

[Gerry Fedor]

love it when people who actually know "nothing" try to tell me about solar power as here's the financials from someone who actually spent the money (out of my own pocket with no help from the California Government).

I bought a 7.5kw system 3 years ago (grid tied) as I wanted a system that would pay for all of the power we use, but I should have bought a 2.2kw system for $@38K.

I could now buy this same system for @$21K as the price of panels has significantly come down in price.

We are considered a "generation station" and have a yearly due power bill.....

This was the first year that we have gotten a check, rather than a credit, but this year our check for the excessive power we produced was $5,535.00. We still have a credit on our bill for $9,800 that we're trying to figure out how to use?

Next year we make have a Christmas lighting display that will rival some of the TV shows you'd see on "Really Stupid Christmas Displays that Blacked Out Los Angeles" to use up this credit...

If we continue to use the power that we have been in the past year, we will be expecting to get a check every year (for a minimum of 25 years) @$5,400.

That's a @6 year ROI (Return On Investment) then it's free power.

I wish all of my investments had this type of return, but in a real world you have some people that will try to tell us that it'll never pay for itself, but others of us are much smarter and laugh everytime we hear stories such as that nonsense!

[stevenfrisch]

Thanks for the personal testimonial Gerry.

[Todd Juvinall]

I would suggest there is no way a small system like Fedors could generate as much dollars as he stated. It is not physically possible. But if he believes it I guess that is all it takes.

[Ben Emery]

Gary,
Where I work we put in 72 panels about 4 years ago. We are ahead of schedule for them to pay themselves off. After that all the energy will then in essence be captured from the sun for free, at least in the dollars and cents aspect anyway. There are other ways of doing things but the accumulated wealth/ power of what we now call conventional energy have such a strong stranglehold on our government and the energy market we will not see alternatives be released until these companies can corner the market first. Then we will do the whole energy dance once again through regulation.

[Joe Koyote]

Some new information about climate change from Stanford.

http://yubanet.com/scitech/Stanford-climate-scientist-addresses-misconceptions-about-climate-change.php#.Ud2WHK6vcw8

[Gregory]

Enjoy cheap solar panels while they last, China can sell them for below cost for only so long.

The economics of solar panels in California would be different were electrical power not one-third more expensive than the average state, and twice that of a number of other states similarly rich with fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric generation wealth.

It still tickles me that the new supercomputer complex being built to run the climate models to see how bad CO2 driven cAGW might be is located in Wyoming so they can use cheap coal generated power to run the thing.

[Gregory]

JK 10:20

That "climate scientist", Chris Field, is a professor of biology (BA Harvard, PhD Stanford) whose job has been to determine how much that nasty warming will do to the ecosphere. In short, he's one of those guys who has no knowledge about whether or not the science behind cAGW is solid and is just "passing on secondary information"(indeed, one alarmist PhD biologist in town here has declared she can't remember ever taking one class in physics from high school forward) but is happy to tell you how bad the effect of it might be on the things he does think he understands.

[MikeL]

Gerry,

I am intrigued as to how you are able to produce such a monetary windfall with your 7.5KW solar system. I was curious how much power (KW-hr) your system is producing per year and how much they are paying you per KW-hr. just for kicks your system is producing power for 6 hrs per day 364 days per year at 7.5 KW.. this gives 16380 KW-hrs per year. If you are using half of this power that leaves 8190 KW-hrs for sale. $5535 divide by 8190 KW-hrs gives 67 1/2 cents a kilowatt. Wow... last time I looked juice at peak was around 23 cents.

I am sincere in wanting to know how you are doing this.

[fish]

George,

I was going to send you this directly so you could choose if you wanted to throw another log on the fire. Sorry couldn't find an e-mail address hidden on the blog.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/07/11/climate-trends-52362/

[Todd Juvinall]

MikeL, good analysis on Fedor made up numbers. I have been quite familiar with the cost and returns of these solar panels and it is usually never paid back when you place all the costs into the mix. Without those taxpayer credits or grants they never pay back. Also, to generate as much power as he says he would need a lot of square footage of panels. The left just makes it up.

[George Rebane]

fish 739am - thanks for that link, even though its content is a bit self-contradictory - e.g. the recent temperature record/predictions are almost completely unreliable, but let's keep following the lead of the IPCC. Use [email protected] to contact me about RR matters.

[fish]

They are agnostic on the matter it seems. It does deal with the issue I mentioned up thread that parties on either side of the issue are guilty of "cherry picking" the data and evangelism in furtherance of their respective position.

[Gregory]

"The wording “fact based” versus “consensus based” implies that one side is factual and the other is not, which is misleading." -JK

Well, the crickets were out in force after my 09 July 2013 at 01:43 PM, so I think the "fact based" and "consensus based" arguments have been made.

In short, if all you can do is count proponents and defer to authority, you're not making a factual argument. Consensus is politics, science isn't.

[Gregory]

BTW George, how did it go Monday? It's still not online and I gather it's set to start airing next Monday.

http://breakingbreadtv.com/july-2013-globalwarming-eric-tomb/

I hope you weren't taking political or systems engineering tacks; especially with a (let me guess) 4:1 house, I'd not expect those to sway anyone. They certainly don't sway me and I generally agree with you.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 141pm - Hmmm..., apparently my updates are not all that attention getting.

The systems engineering tack was forsaken. I had my Venn diagram ready to show, but the direction of the talk and time remaining didn't allow discussing the nesting of factors. But the consensous side took their usual position. Laymen in science have a brick wall when it comes to talking about facts/results from science, they don't dare believe anyone who doesn't have an appropriate label - e.g. climatologist - behind their name. But with the label, you can spew politically correct bullshit, and it's lapped up with gratitude. I'll have more to say about that in a future post. Some of your previous comments have also talked to that point.

[Gregory]

Your update wasn't there the last time I had been to the top! Cable doesn't serve my part of Nirvana County so I have to wait until the streaming starts.

How did Heinlein put it... 'Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic'? Some of our neighbors are more magical than others, and are more comfortable citing authorities as if they were high priests revealing a magnum mysterium to be remembered and recited... like a canned K-12 science lesson.

[Bill Tozer]

Not related to electric golf cars, but differently related to energy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23241896

Heck, maybe not even related to anything, but I thought Mr. Steele might find it interesting.

[Bill Tozer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/11/california-regulators-look-to-curb-beach-bonfires-citing-climate-change/

Dam eco-wacos ruin everythig that is fun. What a glum lot our regulators are.

[George Rebane]

The attempt to ban humans from most existing beaches would not be a surprise. Our stack and pack future is pursued on many fronts.

[Bill Tozer]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_say_scientists/

Think there is a growing consensus that there may not be a consensus

[George Rebane]

BillT 945pm - Thanks for that link Mr Tozer.

[Gerry Fedor]

Sorry guys but your wrong as we are producing power right now from @6:15 am until @7:30 pm so this 6 hours a day is not quite accurate.

Todd, I have a belief that with your past history (with number crunching) that you are not the guy we should trust with economics and figuring out viability of economic investments!

It's pretty obvious that your ideas on economics have never really worked out that well.....

[Gregory]

BB4 is still not online! George, any idea what's holding it up?

http://breakingbreadtv.com/july-2013-globalwarming-eric-tomb/

[Gregory]

"Sorry guys but your [sic] wrong as we are producing power right now from @6:15 am until @7:30 pm so this 6 hours a day is not quite accurate."

How much of the day are your arrays producing 50% peak power, or better?

[George Rebane]

Gregory 839am - Thanks for the heads up. I couldn't find it either on the NCTV site. Am checking into it and will post an update when I find out.