Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

It amazes me that some people still believe these LCOE claims when it's so obvious that countries, and states in the US, that have prioritized the development of wind and solar energy, have the highest prices of energy, resulting in the departure of many manufacturing industries to other countries where energy prices are much cheaper as a result of the continued development and use of fossil fuels.
.
.
.

You need to be a bit careful about that. The first question you should ask is do the prices reflect externalities? Fossil fuel industries have received government aid of one kind or another for over 100 years and the effects of that may be so deeply embedded by now that extracting their real value might be very difficult, even if people want to do that. It is also true that adoption of new tech, especially in the early stages, often involves government aid. I don't see this as necessarily good or bad but it does mean that even though prices should ideally provide a good basis for cross comparison, it's one hell of an assumption to assert that they do. Who is counting and what are they counting.

Just one example, how do you price in the effects of much higher incidence of some cancers on the Louisiana refinery coast? I have no idea how you would do that either, but it is a real cost, even if it is not shown on any corporate balance sheet. What is the cost of lithium mining to human health? My guess is that the latter is being monitored by someone in this day and age, even if it is ignored. But this may not have been true in the past. For example, public monitoring of air near strip mines and miner health in the eastern coal industry has been overtly curtailed by industry lobbying in much the same way as the CDC is prevented from studying the health effects of guns. It's a bit easy to say the data doesn't show anything when you don't collect any.

[Ray]

That's a very good post for discussion, Robert. There are so many activities and processes in modern societies that are subsidized or receive government aid in one form or another. For example, the U.S. government is now spending neary 1 trillion dollars per year to supports its military.

If one includes the salaries of all government officials, health subsidies, debt interest payments, and so on, the total annual expenditure is around $7 trillion in the US.

So let's get down to basics. Where does all this money come from?
The indisputable answer is 'Energy from Fossil Fuels.' Reliable and cheap sources of energy are the bedrock of economic development.

Government subsidies to certain fossil fuel companies are fundamentally supported and paid for by the fossil fuel companies who pay billions of dollars in taxes and royalties to the government.

There are many reasons for certain subsidies to certain fossil fuel companies, which are justified. For example, subsidies were essential in the United States’ fracking revolution. Novel approaches to extracting fossil gas and oil – boosted by major tax incentives – turned the US from a major importer of oil and gas into a net exporter by 2019. The US went from being dependent on energy provided by foreign nations to being independent. Now that's sensible, wouldn't you agree?

Of course there are always some negative results of all types of energy production, and these negative results need to be addressed. However, they can't be addressed without using energy. Everything we do in a modern society requires energy, including the scientific research and technological development required to address the negative effects of our energy production.

I firmly believe in the potential of genuine scientific research and technological development to solve all our problems. The air pollution from burning coal used to be terrible decades ago, but the problem has now been solved by the development of Ultra Supercritical power plants and advanced emission controls.

In general, the positive effects of our use of fossil fuels far outweigh the negative effects. However, that doesn't mean we should always rely exclusively on fossil fuels for our energy sources. The true cost of our energy supplies, taking everything into consideration, should always be examined. If a renewable source of energy is genuinely more efficient than the best available fossil fuel source, taking everything into consideration, then that renewable energy should be used.

Our prosperity and well-being is not only dependent on realiable sources of energy, but also the real cost of that energy and the efficiency of the ways we use it.

For example, using energy from fossil fuels to manufacture solar panels could be a more efficient way to use those fossil fuels for the production of electricity. But we still need that energy from fossil fuels to mine the minerals, manufacture the solar panels, transport and install the solar panels, and the governments also need the revenue from fossil fuels to fund the subsidies that are required to ecourage the purchase of the solar panels, and the construction of solar farms.

Then there's the negative cost of disposing of millions of solar panels after their expiry in 20 to 30 years. Recycling is possible, but much more expensive than landfill.

I don't think all these associated and external costs are accurately quantified, do you? For example, if a country claims that 10% of its electricity is produced from solar power, do they take into account all those amounts of fossil fuels used in the production, installation and maintenance of the panels? If they did, the percentage would be significantly less than 10%.

[Ray]

We've covered this before. No one credible calls CO2 a pollutant but please don't bother finding a reference to someone who did.

I agree. No one credible calls CO2 a pollutant.

"All that climate scientists say is that a man-made rapid onset imbalance of CO2 is not good. And just pre-empt you, CO2 is not a fertilizer either."

What term would you prefer to use other than 'fertilizer'. Do you consider the following site reliable?
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

Here's an extract from the study.

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

"The statement that CO2 is essential for life is meaningless. We naturally have arsenic and mercury in our bodies too, but don't add them to your salad."

Again I'm amazed that you would associate deadly poisons with CO2, especially after stating that: 'No one credible calls CO2 a pollutant.' Are you just having a joke? 

[KLaban]

Dragged down by an unpopular president, Republicans are bracing for a midterm trouncing.

Guardian article

[Robert Roaldi]

.
.
.
Again I'm amazed that you would associate deadly poisons with CO2, especially after stating that: 'No one credible calls CO2 a pollutant.' Are you just having a joke? 

That was my point. In the correct concentrations, they are not poisons. It's an error to extrapolate from analogies. Analogies are only useful for illustration.

But I am not going to engage in any of these points, they have been discussed at length here and elsewhere and we'll just end up going around in circles. The main idea I was trying to convey is that everything we do involves costs and benefits that need to be evaluated. We cannot evaluate those properly if data is hidden or not collected in the first place. And yes, it costs money to collect and evaluate data. It also costs money to not do so.

[digitaldog]

In general, the positive effects of our use of fossil fuels far outweigh the negative effects

AI disagrees!!! 

“What worries me is not so much artificial intelligence, but natural stupidity.“ - physicist, Frank Wilczek

“In general” that is hilarious too.

[digitaldog]

Last year, ninety-six per cent of the global demand for new electricity was met by renewables, and in the United States ninety-three per cent of new generating capacity came from solar, wind, and an ever-increasing variety of batteries to store that power.
In March, for the first time, fossil fuels generated less than half the electricity in the U.S. In California, at one point on May 25th, renewables were producing a record hundred and fifty-eight per cent of the state’s power demand. Over the course of the entire day, they produced eighty-two per cent of the power in California, which, this spring, surpassed Japan to become the world’s fourth-largest economy.

As the energy investor Rob Carlson put it recently, continuing to burn fossil fuels is a “self-imposed financial penalty” which will “ultimately degrade the country’s long-term global competitiveness.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/46-billion-years-on-the-sun-is-having-a-moment

[Ray]

Last year, ninety-six per cent of the global demand for new electricity was met by renewables, and in the United States ninety-three per cent of new generating capacity came from solar, wind, and an ever-increasing variety of batteries to store that power.

Let's get this in perspective, to avoid confusion. Globally, electricity accounts for roughly 20% of total primary energy consumption. However, 60% of that 20% is still produced by fossil fuels

In other words, renewables currently produce around 40% of the 20% of primary energy in the form of electricity, which translates to 8% of total energy consumption.

However, this figue of 8% does not include all the fossil fuels required to manufacture, transport, install, and dispose of solar panels and windmills when their use has expired. So, applying a bit of rationalty, it is reasonable to assume that the real percentage of electricity from renewables is significantly less than 8% of total global energy consumption.

It's easy for many people to be confused by reports when they don't investigate the context. For example. there are reports that in 2024, Australia produced a record high share for renewables representing 36% of total electricity generation. That sounds impressive, however, the broader picture shows that fossil fuels still made up 91% of Australia's total primary energy mix, including transport and heating, in 2023-24, with oil, coal, and gas being the largest primary sources.

Another issue that the virtue-signaling 'climate-change-alarmists' seem to miss, is that Australia exports around 3 times as much fossil fuels that it consumes in that 91% of total primary energy mix.

A lot of that fossil fuel is exported to China which uses a portion of that fuel to produce solar panels which Australia buys, and then deludes itself that it is producing carbon-free energy, when the realty is it is simply exporting emissions to other countries.

Of course, if Australia were to stop all exports of fossil fuels to address this imagined CO2 scare, its economy would collapse, and other countries would experience an economic decline due to rising fossil fuel prices.

Since this is a photographic site, I've attached a couple of magnificent images which show the global reliance on fossil fuels, and the trivial percentage of renewables in the energy mix. 

[Robert Roaldi]

.
.
.
It's easy for many people to be confused by reports when they don't investigate the context. For example. there are reports that in 2024, Australia produced a record high share for renewables representing 36% of total electricity generation. That sounds impressive, however, the broader picture shows that fossil fuels still made up 91% of Australia's total primary energy mix, including transport and heating, in 2023-24, with oil, coal, and gas being the largest primary sources.

Another issue that the virtue-signaling 'climate-change-alarmists' seem to miss, is that Australia exports around 3 times as much fossil fuels that it consumes in that 91% of total primary energy mix.
.
.
.

By "many people", do you mean people other than you?   

"virtue-signaling 'climate-change-alarmists' " is not very subtle. Name-calling people that you disagree with is not necessary if you believe that your data analysis is correct. Because if you're just a "virtue-signaling 'climate-change-denier' ", you give away the game. Just sayin'.

.
.
.
Since this is a photographic site, I've attached a couple of magnificent images which show the global reliance on fossil fuels, and the trivial percentage of renewables in the energy mix.
.
.

In the very early days of Covid, hardly anyone had Covid. Snapshots in time can be interesting data points but they are not predictive. Sometimes that confuses people.

[Ray]

"virtue-signaling 'climate-change-alarmists' " is not very subtle. Name-calling people that you disagree with is not necessary if you believe that your data analysis is correct. Because if you're just a "virtue-signaling 'climate-change-denier' ", you give away the game. Just sayin'.

I wasn't trying to be subtle. I was simply trying to accurately express what I've observed, in simple terms.

Definition of subtle: 'So delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyse or describe.'

Definition of virtue-signaling: 'The public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.'

'Climate-change-alarmism' is also an accurate description of many people's position and views on the changing climate. However, the term 'climate-change-denier', as applied to skeptics, is very inaccurate and misleading, because anyone who has even a basic knowledge of the history of climate would realize that the earth's climate has always been in a state of change, as it continues to be in our modern era.

Therefore, it would be reasonable to describe a 'climate-change-denier' as someone who believes that Earth's climate used to be stable before mankind began emitting CO2 from fossil fuels.

Oops! That seems to be similar to the position of a 'climate-change-alarmist'. 

[digitaldog]

Let's get this in perspective, to avoid confusion.
Do scientists agree on climate change? Those virtue-signaling 'climate-change-alarmists’?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
It’s just NASA and yes, they are involved in rocket science too.  ;-)
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/

Maybe we will find out where Ray got (at the bare minimum) his bachelor's degree in climatology or a related field such as meteorology or atmospheric science. Oh wait….🤫

A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And, stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact.

“If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, it's actually not a disagreement. You're just wrong. Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn't lie to you. It learned more.” Neil deGrasse Tyson

[digitaldog]

Let's get this in perspective, to avoid confusion. Globally, electricity accounts for roughly 20% of total primary energy consumption. However, 60% of that 20% is still produced by fossil fuels

When all you use is a horse, everything on the road appears to be road apples. So you post road apple analysis while continuing to ignore the current data, trends, and cost calculations provided!

In the 1880s and 1890s, horses still dominated private transportation and urban freight. Even in massive cities like New York, horse-drawn streetcars remained standard until electrification in the late 1890s.
The Early 1900s Transition: The dominance of horses on roads began to collapse between 1907 and 1920. By 1917, the last horse-powered railcars had ceased operation in New York, and by the mid-1920s, the number of registered motor vehicles in the U.S. began to exceed the horse population.

If you lie long enough about having a horse eventually somebody will buy you a saddle.

[digitaldog]

Corporate cases soar as tariffs, inflation leave mark
The Washington Post

Experts say trade wars have put pressure on import-heavy businesses as effects of steep price jumps still taking effect
At least 717 companies filed for bankruptcy through November, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelli-gence. That's roughly 14% more than the same 1l months of 2024, and the highest tally since 2010.
The sector has been hit hard by President Donald Trump's ever-fluid tariff policies- which he's long insisted would revive American manufacturing. The manufacturing sector lost more than 70,000 jobs in the one-year period ending in November, federal data shows.

Its ALL Bidens fault... oh wait

[Robert Roaldi]

Patrick Boyle examines the Epstein file imbroglio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAJf2F1BbRA. As if the entire shit show wasn't "entertaining" enough on its own, the fools released files whose redactions can be reversed. Every day, a new low. Flooding the zone is one thing, but geez no one could write a farce this good.

[Ray]

Let's get this in perspective, to avoid confusion.
Do scientists agree on climate change? Those virtue-signaling 'climate-change-alarmists’?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

You mean, like the vast majority of scientists agreed that the Earth was the centre of the universe until Galileo, about 400 years ago, provided evidence that it wasn't? Oh dear! Look what happened to him. 

This should be a lesson for all scientist engaged in climate studies. Don't disagree with the consensus of opinion in your field, or you'll lose your job, or have to fight a lawsuit. 

Whilst it's true I am not a working scientists and have no degree in any of the numerous disciplines involved in climate studies, I have a general interest in science and have read many books on the history of science and the methodology of scientific enquiry.
When the alarm about a warming climate became major news items in the late 1980's, I thought it was an important and interesting subject that was worth investigating.

Fortunately, I am an independent and relatively unbiased person. I own no shares in any company or organization. I have no personal debt. I'm retired on a pension, so have no concern about losing a job. I have no children, so I have less need to worry about the future effects of a changing climate. I own my own house which is on 5 acres of land, so, if there's an economic collapse, I can grow enough food to be self-sufficient.

However, all humans have some degree of bias, whether scientists or not, so I accept that I am not perfectly unbiased. Part of the reason I joined the Luminous Landscape forum, is because I enjoy being in a natural landscape, walking through forests, up mountains, around lakes, and photographing anything I find interesting.

When I first learned from my investigations into climate issues, that increases in CO2 levels increase plant growth, that knowledge might have had a greater impact on me than on someone who lives in a city environment, and rarely or even never ventures out to the natural environment.

By the way, can you show me the scientific studies, and their methodology, which conclude there is a 97% consensus that humans are the major cause of the current change in climate and that such change could lead to catastrophe?

If you investigate the issue, you might find that the 97% figure only applies to about 35% of the climate-related papers examined, which expressed a definitive opinion one way or the other. In other words, there's approximately a 34% consensus that the current change in climate is mainly due to human emissions of CO2, a 1% consensus that the effect of human activity is too small to have a discernible effect, and a 65% lack of opinion one way or the other because the issue is too complicated for a sufficient degree of certainty.

Of course, those figures will fluctuate depending on the questions asked. There are so many related issues to address, such as, are humans responsible for more than 50% of the current warming, or less than 50%? Is an increase in atmospheric CO2 really bad, considering that the planet is currently increasing its leaf area by a significant quantity, and so on.

[Robert Roaldi]

You mean, like the vast majority of scientists agreed that the Earth was the centre of the universe until Galileo, about 400 years ago, provided evidence that it wasn't? Oh dear! Look what happened to him. 

This should be a lesson for all scientist engaged in climate studies. Don't disagree with the consensus of opinion in your field, or you'll lose your job, or have to fight a lawsuit.
.
.
.

Characterizing the people of that time as "scientists" is stretching the point beyond where I can accept.

The fallback of many "deniers" is that there is some cabal that is policing science consensus. To me this comes across as gas-lighting. It's very similar to the GOP's wildest criticism of Biden/DEM/Clinton/Obama, that is, the things the GOP accuses them of doing are precisely the things that they do themselves. Think about the recent "free speech" contortions.

Can you provide an example of a climate scientist who was sued for not towing the line? I'd be curious to see those details.

Making vague accusations of scientists afraid to present their contrary data for fear of being ostracized and thus not getting research grants is a very easy thing to say. Lots of people make those statements. You could say that those that do that have reached a consensus. Knee-jerk contrarianism should not be confused with independence of thought. It's a cute Hollywood cliché that the one person in the room with a contrary opinion is the hero who turns out to be correct. It's a cute romantic idea that makes for entertaining fiction, but that's all it is.



 

[digitaldog]

Characterizing the people of that time as "scientists" is stretching the point beyond where I can accept.

+1
Sadly, this denial of facts and science is from someone who never lets a nearly complete lack of data, evidence, or facts on a subject get in his way of having strong opinions about it. Still waiting on when we will find out where he got (at the bare minimum) his bachelor's degree in climatology or a related field such as meteorology or atmospheric science. Worth repeating here again:

“What Refutes Science & Facts
• Better science based on new facts

What Does NOT Refute Science
• Your feelings
• Your politics
• Your Religion
• Your assumptions
• Your assertions based on your assumptions
• Your opinion
• Your half-baked opinion after watching a YouTube video made by someone who doesn't understand science
• Your half-baked opinion after reading online commentary made by someone who doesn't understand science
• Facts pulled out of your b$&&
• Imaginations that aren't based on facts
• Data or statistics acquired by the method described above” - TechTalk

“Any time scientists disagree, it's because we have insufficient data. Then we can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves the problem. Either I'm right, or you're right, or we're both wrong. And we move on. That kind of conflict resolution does not exist in politics or religion”.
Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Ray]

Characterizing the people of that time as "scientists" is stretching the point beyond where I can accept.

Okay, children, here's a bit of history. 

Have you heard of Ibn al-Haytham, sometimes translated as Alhazen or Alhacen?  He's widely regarded as the first true scientist and the "father of the modern scientific method". He was a Muslim, born in Iraq in 965 AD and died in Egypt in 1040 AD. 

He established experiments as the norm for proof, centuries before European Renaissance scientists, making him a crucial figure in optics, physics, and mathematics.

Here are the Key Components of His Method:

1. Observation & Intuition: Starting with phenomena, he used creative and critical thinking to form initial ideas.
2. Hypothesis: He formulated testable hypotheses about light, such as light traveling in straight lines and being emitted by objects, not eyes.
3. Controlled Experimentation: He designed specific experiments, like projecting images through a small hole, to test his ideas, manipulating variables like light sources and angles.
4. Verification & Repetition: He stressed that results must be consistent across repeated trials and that conclusions needed independent verification, a core of modern science.
5. Mathematical Reasoning: He linked physical problems to mathematical abstractions, using geometry to describe light's path.
6. Distrust of Authority: He famously urged, "Don't take my word for it. See for yourself," promoting empirical proof over blind acceptance.

He was the author of hundreds of works on diverse subjects, including astronomy, mathematics, logic, philosophy, medicine, theology, and music, but his greatest and most famous work was a 7-volume 'Book of Optics', which, as a photographer, should be of interest to you.

His Book of Optics established foundational principles like light's rectilinear propagation (travels in straight lines), reflection (laws of mirrors), and refraction (bending through media), developed the camera obscura for image formation, proposed light as both particles and waves, and detailed ocular anatomy, forming the basis of modern optics through rigorous experimentation and empirical methods, overturning older emission theories of vision.

His works were frequently cited during the scientific revolution by Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Christiaan Huygens, and Galileo who lived centuries later.

[Ray]

Can you provide an example of a climate scientist who was sued for not towing the line? I'd be curious to see those details.

No. I should have written: 'or you'll lose your job and be involved in a long lawsuit if you sue your employer for breach of intellectual freedom'.

A famous case in Australia involves the sacking of Dr Peter Ridd who criticized the validity of some of the work of his colleagues in relation to the efects of 'climate change' on the Great Barrier Reef.

If you're interested in the details of Dr Peter Ridd's criticism, the following article provides the details.

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Science-Behind-Peter-Ridds-Dismissal-Jennifer-Marohasy.pdf#:~:text=Dr%20Ridd's%20first%20public%20criticism,inner%20Great%20Barrier%20Reef%20was

Oops! Sorry! The above article is written by a 'climate change denier'. You should only read articles supported by the consensus view on climate matters. Never question the consensus or read any contrary views. You are not equipped to think for yourself. Always trust the authorities.   

[digitaldog]

Okay, children, here's a bit of history. 
Have you heard of Ibn al-Haytham, sometimes translated as Alhazen or Alhacen?  He's widely regarded as the first true scientist

Not from AI:
Ibn Al-Haytham portrait is on the Iraqi Dinar!
From AI, correcting the statement above if you'll accept AI:

Overview
There's no single "first scientist," but Thales of Miletus (c. 624–546 BC) is often called the first scientist for using natural explanations, while Aristotle (384–322 BC) formalized logic and observation; however, many credit Ibn al-Haytham (965–1039 CE) for pioneering the scientific method, and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) as the first modern experimental scientist, though the term "scientist" itself was coined in 1833 by William Whewell